


t C «< *L < 


















KTa 









1 <€ . 



cr < 
C crc «£ <s OCT 

<* C7 ( A ' ggag^ * «.c . tree ^ r 









u * 



y*M. 



UfflE 



-.i'« 



;«v« 



. *'%Afi 



LIBRARY OF OONGiiESS. ! 









UNITED STATES <>K IMERICA.! 



*n*flrljAlfl 



iUii 



kiL 



n 






iNff^fi 



mm 






kW* 



m 



SCRIPTURE BAPTISM 

DEFENDED, 

A. NO 

ANABAPTIST NOTIONS 

PROVED TO HK 

ANTI-SCRIPTURAL NOVELTIES 



BY 

REV. JOHN LEVINGTON. 



"Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with 
water ; bat ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."— Acts xi. 16. 

" Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of such is the Kingdom 
of God."— Marks. 14. 

"Therefore, as bv the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even »o 
by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto juatificat ion of life."— Rom. v. 13. 

'• Where lin abounded grace did much more abound"— Rom. v. 20. 

1867 

SOLD BY T. K. ADAMS, DETROIT. 

ALSO, 

AT THE METHODIST BOOK DEPOSITORY; AND BY THE 

AUTHOR, MONROE, MICH., 

AND BY BOOKSELLERS GENERALLY. 












6 



\& 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1S65, 

BY JOHN F. TROW, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States 

for the Southern District of New York. 






CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 



Position of Anabaptists Stated— The words Dip. Plunge, Immerse, Overwhelm , 
not Synonymous — They give us the word Plunge as the Synonym of 
Baptize, and their practice is to Plunge, and Pluuge only— Their favorite 
arguments drawn from the Baptism by John and that by Philip — John's 
Baptism not Christian Baptism— Christ's Baptism different from both — 
Their Arguments based up'>n a mere Assumption — Their Assumption is 
shown to involve palpable Absurdities — It is disproved and shown to be 
a mere Legging of the question. . . . . . .1 



CHAPTER II. 

Direct Argument taken up— That which God calls Baptism shown to be ad- 
ministered by the baptismal element Falling upon the Subject— This is 
claimed to be a Fact— "What God Asserts Baptists Deny— God Baptizes 
by Pouring— This, too, is a Fact— His Precept and his Practice Against 
Plunging. ......... 9 



CHAPTER III. 

The idea that Christ's baptism and that of Christians are symbolical of Christ's 
burial, has no countenance from Scripture. It is absurd. Itomans vi. 3, 4, 
fully examined and rescued from their perversions. . . 21 



iv CONTEXTS. 



CHAPTER IV. 

The word Sprinkle is now taken up— Its use and design shown from Scrip- 
ture—Plunging for the purpose of scaling is an outrage upon common 

. 27 
6ense. 



CHAPTER V. 

The assumption that en, eia, and ek, always mean in, into, and out of, is 
refuted, and the argument huilt thereon, shown to be worthless, a 
mere begging of the question. . . . • • • 31 



CHAPTER VI. 



A fallacy and its terrible consequences exposed. If Philip and the Eunuch 
did go down into the water it would not follow that either was plunged 
—The question, "Why did John baptize where there was much wa- 



ter?" answered. 



CHAPTER VII. 



The dogma that nothing but Plunging is Baptism is shown to involve what is 
Unreasonable, Inhuman, and even Impossible. . • • • *■* 



CHAPTER VIII. 

The appeal to antiquity is simply superstition, cruelty, and absurdity, appealing 
to superstition, cruelty, and Bbsoidlty-Many auperetitiouB and absurd 
opinions and practices specified as having obtained in the nominally 
Christian Church at a very early period-It is difficult to mention any one 
religious dogma that is more clogged with difficulties than is the dogma Of 
plunging. ...••• 

CHAPTER IX. 

Summing up-A great variety of Particulars are Specified-Plunging was, and 
is, connected with Superstition and various Errors, and is don 1 
Offspring of Bnperadtion-Proaelytlng, eanalng Proaeljto to ttenoonea 
their Baptism is very Berfona-1 ' the roppoaition that 

the German Fanatic, discovered what all thewlM and the learned both 



CONTEXTS. V 

ancient and modern have failed to discover- It is tlic duty of Zion'a 
Watchmen to Save their People from being Proselyted— The sincciity of 
the Anabaptists in crying for Union under certain circumstances is very 
questionable while they teach as they do — We are not. at liberty to reject 
a Divinely appointed Method and adopt another, especially when that 
other is very objectionable in itself— Nor is the Church at Liberty to leave 
to the choice and whims of Men to Decide where it is her duty to Teach 
what God has already Decided— Taylor's Pictorial Representations show- 
ing the Ancient mode of Baptism. . . . . . .53 



CHAPTER X. 

Bitter opposition of Antipcdobaptists to Infant Baptism— Grounds ot 
their opposition examined and refuted. . . . .65 



CHAPTER XL 

It is shown that Infant Baptism takes the place of Circumcision— Early Chris- 
tian Fathers are quoted— Testimony of Felagius— The Antipedobaptist 
dogma one of the most modern of religious errors— Baxter is quoted — 
Other Fathers are quoted. . . . . . . .73 



CHAPTER XII. 

It is shown that Infant Baptism has been practised, from Apostolic times— No* 
One clear case of Opposition to Infant Baptism till tbo Sixteenth Century 
—Appealing to, and Reasoning with, the Antipcdobaptists— Astounding 
Facts Stated — They cannot tell us when the Practice of Baptizing Infants 
Commenced— Wo can tell them When and by Whom Opposition thereto 
Commenced— Infant Baptism the Uncontradicted Practice of the Churcli 
from Apostolic till Modern Times. . . . . .85 



CHAPTER XIII. 

The objection that Infant Baptism is incompatible with Man's Natural Rights 
is shown to be ridiculous — It contains the very germ of Infidelity, and 
even Atheism — Objection that Circumcision was a Civil Contract is 
refuted — Many absurdities exposed. . . .01 



v i CON I BBTB. 

CHAPTER XIV. 

Direct Scripture proof-Infants have the necessary qualifications for Baptism - 
Their claim more clear than that of any Adult-Romans v. 12, 1>, 19 ex- 
plalned-Tbe Infant has the same qualifications for Baptism, that Abraham 
had for Circumcision ; the same thai believing Adults have km Bnptism-A 
close connection between Infant Baptism and Infant Salvation on the one 
hand, and between Antipedobaptism and infant damnation on the other-Re- 
marks ou the moral nature of Infant*. • 

CHAPTER XV. 

The Argument from Apostolic Practice-The Apostles Baptized the Believing 
Father and his House— Remarks on the Greek words Oikos and Oikia- 
Taylor is quoted-Some further remarks with regard to the Origin and 
History of the Anabaptists. . . ■ • • • 115 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 



During the past -winter, the M. E. Church in this 
city held a protracted meeting, and it pleased God to 
give efficiency to his word, and to bless the labors of his 
people and crown them with much success. The Pres- 
byterians also held a protracted meeting at the same 
time, and although each Church attended to its own 
work, there was a free intercourse of both pastors and 
members ; each attending the meetings of their sister 
Church when an opportunity offered. 

Thus things went on pleasantly and prosperously till 
the Anabaptists commenced to work in their usual way, 
preaching and urging their peculiar views, publicly, and 
from house to house. Their baptism was the only bap- 
tism ; "there was no other mode practised for more than 
fifteen hundred years." Baptism was "neither more nor 
less than to dip, plunge, dive, or immerse under the pres- 
sure of the minister's hand." And as their baptism was 
the only baptism, their Church, of course, was the only 



Vlll INTRODUCTORY REMARK >. 

Church. It was loudly demanded, " Where was the 
Methodist Church before John Wesley ? Where was the 
hyterian Church before John Calvin? " Our econ- 
omy was attacked and our " Class-book" pronounced u a 
mere catchtrap." The members of my charge were vis- 
ited in their own houses, and the Bible taken from the 
shelf to prove that our baptism was no baptism, and that 
plunging only was baptism ; then they were kindly as- 
sured that the baptist door was open, and that if they 
would come they would be accepted and receive scripture 
baptism. 

Thus the work of proselyting was pushed forward 
with a zeal and a perseverance worthy of a better cause. 
And those poor dupes who were caught in this way were 
made to renouuee their baptism, brought to the river, 
and made " to plunge, dip, dive, or immerse, under pres- 
sure of the minister's hand." 

Now they became exceeding bold, and even boasted 
of their success in proselyting, so much so that a certain 
lady very boastfully said to one of our people, MVc will 
haw three or four more of your Methodist ladies." But 
though matters wore arranged in full confidence of load- 
ing them and several others to the river, they were de- 
prived of that pleasure; a little instruction under the 
tog of God Bayed then from that man ' A vouno- 
lady, [ think one of the expected four, and a young con- 
vert, afterward told me that "Mr. II. followed her till 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. IX 

she was almost distracted and so distressed that she 
wept. And when she told him that she thought our bap- 
tism was proper baptism, he threateningly said, " How 
dare you say so ? " She says she actually trembled. 
She having been converted in our meetings and received 
into our Church some time before, I said, " Why did 
you not come and tell me ? 5) She said, " I was so per- 
plexed I did not know what to do." I think these were 
her words. 

Some young men who, like many others, became 
filled with these ideas, and seemed to think that they 
were now prepared to prove anything and everything, 
came into my Bible Class and desired me to bring up 
the subject of baptism there ; but I told them, " No, it 
is my custom when others are at it to let them blow off, 
and then I will attend to it." Efforts were also made to 
unsettle the minds of our Sabbath School children, and 
means employed to that end similar to those already 
mentioned; nor were they employed without effect. 
Teachers came to me telling me that I must do some- 
thing, for many of the children had become very uneasy ; 
one whole class I was requested to talk to, and did so? 
and succeeded, I think, in restoring their quiet. 

But time would fail to tell all, and some is really too 
bad to be told ; and I have concluded not to tell it. 
Suffice it to say, that my pastoral abilities were heavily 
taxed ; but by diligence and the blessing of God I sue- 



X INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

cccdcd in saving most of the sheep; though I am well 
convinced that much harm was done by the doings of 
these prosclytcrs; and I have had much sorrow and have 
wept many tears in consequence. For while we labored 
simply to lead sinners to Jesus for salvation, they labored 
to bring them to the river for immersion ; while we la- 
bored to convert them to God, they labored to convert 
them to their peculiar notions ! 

Finally, I called the Church together, having previ- 
ously called the attention of the official board to the mat- 
ter, and having also conversed previously with some of 
the leading brethren alone. I stated some of the facts 
to the Church, saying as now, that there were other 
things that I would forbear to tell, at least for the pres- 
ent. Some of the older brethren, and others, expressed 
their disapprobation of such doings and gave wise coun- 
sel. I also gave what I conceived to be good advice ; 
others told their experience, and appropriately referred 
to what they had witnessed in days of Millerite and 
Campbcllite excitement, and prophesied that these efforts 
would come to naught, as those did. And having thus 
talked, and sung, and prayed, we departed, trusting in 
the Lord. 

Finally, on Sunday, the 23d of April, I announced 
thai I would preach on baptism on the following Sunday, 
which I did tw'uv. and so I did on each of the two fol- 
lowing Sabbaths, BLX Bermonfl in all; and from that time 



ESTEODUCTOBY RKWARKS. XI 

till now none hare been made " to plunge, dip, or dire, 
under the pressure of the mi In the fol- 

lowing pages you hare the substance of these sermons, 
for most of wl I re delivery. I 

thought it necessary to state these facts, that the reader 
might appreciate some of the remarks in the following 
pages. X st time that I hare 

been annoyed in this way. 

In referring to the denominition with whose teach- 
! I join issue, it was necessary, of course, to use some 
distinctive appellation. I did not think it proper to use 
the appellation Baptist, for that term is calculated and 
designed to c idea that the denomination to 

which it is applied is the only denomination that baptises 
at all. But n fin 6 :m being true that it would 

be more in harmony with truth to call them Ant i bap- 
tists, seeing they are opposed to the baptism of children, 
that is, to the baptism of the whole human race till a 
given period is reaehed. I have, therefore, used the ap- 
pellation Anabapt: • 7 were originally and prop- 
:alled, because they rebaptiaed. I hare also used 
the appellation Antipedobaptists, because they are op- 
posed to the baptism of children. And, for the sake of 
convenience. I hare sometimes used the appellation Im- 
mer- : correct, 
for they do not immerse, as we haTe shown, but they 
plunge, and plunge only ; but we did not like to use the 



X INTRODUCTORY RKMARKfl. 

cecded in saving most of the sheep ; though I am -well 
convinced that much harm was done by the doings of 
these prosclyters; and I have had much sorrow and have 
wept many tears in consequence. For while we labored 
simply to lead sinners to Jesus for salvation, they labored 
to bring them to the river for immersion ; while we la- 
bored to convert them to God, they labored to convert 
them to their peculiar notions ! 

Finally, I called the Church together, having previ- 
ously called the attention of the official board to the mat- 
ter, and having also conversed previously with some of 
the leading brethren alone. I stated some of the facts 
to the Church, saying as now, that there were other 
things that I would forbear to tell, at least for the pres- 
ent. Some of the older brethren, and others, expressed 
their disapprobation of such doings and gave wise coun- 
sel. I also gave what I conceived to be good advice ; 
others told their experience, and appropriately referred 
to what they had witnessed in days of Millerite and 
Campbellite excitement, and prophesied that these efforts 
would come to naught, as those did. And having thus 
talked, and sung, and prayed, we departed, trusting in 
the Lord. 

Finally, on Sunday, the 23d of April, I announeed 
that I would preach on baptism on the following Sundav, 
which I did twice, and so I did on each of the two fol- 
lowing Sabbaths, bU sermons in all ; and from that time 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. XI 

till now none have been made " to plunge, dip, or dive, 
under the pressure of the minister's hand ! " In the fol- 
lowing pages you have the substance of these sermons, 
for most of what I said was written before delivery. I 
thought it necessary to state these facts, that the reader 
might appreciate some of the remarks in the following 
pages. Moreover, this is not the first time that I have 
been annoyed in this way. 

In referring to the denomination with whose teach- 
ings I join issue, it was necessary, of course, to use some 
distinctive appellation. I did not think it proper to use 
the appellation Baptist, for that term is calculated and 
designed to convey the idea that the denomination to 
which it is applied is the only denomination that baptizes 
at all. But so far is this from being true that it would 
be more in harmony with truth to call them Antibap- 
tists, seeing they are opposed to the baptism of children, 
that is, to the baptism of the whole human race till a 
given period is reached. I have, therefore, used the ap- 
pellation Anabaptists, as they were originally and prop- 
erly called, because they rebaptized. I have also used 
the appellation Antipedobaptists ; because they are op- 
posed to the baptism of children. And, for the sake of 
convenience, I have sometimes used the appellation Im- 
mersioniits, though, strictly speaking, that is not correct, 
for they do not immerse, as we have shown, but they 
plunge, and plunge only ; but we did not like to use the 



Xii INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

appellation jril«ywt, though it would be a truthful appel- 
lation, hut it has a strange want of euphony about it. 

If any person, after carefully reading this little work, 
will booestly Bay to me, " I still believe that the views 
objected to arc the right views," I here promise that I 
will return to such the price of the pamphlet and take it 
back cheerfully. 

I think this work is needed, for everything of impor- 
tance and relevant to the subject is pressed into this 
small compass, and so stated, I think, that everybody 
may read and understand. For the same purpose I have 
caused the Greek quotations to be printed in English 
characters. 

JOHN LEVINGTON. 

Monroe, Mich ro ax. 



CHRISTIAN BAPTISM-THE MODE. 



CHAPTER I. 

Position of Anabaptists Stated— The words Dip, Plunge, Immerse, Overwhelm, 
not Synonymous— They give us the word Plunge as the Synonym of 
Baptize, and their practice is to Plunge, and Plungo only— Their favorite 
arguments drawn from the Baptism by John and that by Philip— John's 
Baptism not Christian Baptism — Christ's Baptism different from both — 
Their Arguments based upon a mere Assumption— Their Assumption is 
shown to involve palpable Absurdities— It is disproved and shown to be 
a mere begging of the question. 

The position of the Anabaptists with regard to the 
mode of baptism, is this. They say, " Baptism is neither 
more nor less than an immersion of the whole body in 
water, solemnly performed in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Their argu- 
ments in favor of this position are usually commenced 
thus, by their writers : " Baptism, from the Greek word 
Baptizo, or Bapto, I dip or plunge." " To dip, plunge 
or immerse." They also use the word overwhelm, and 
sometimes other words which they consider synonymous 
with these. Baptize, dip, plunge, immerse, overwhelm. 
It is assumed that these five terms arc synonymous, but 
we deny that any one of them is synonymous with any 
other one of the five terms. It is not necessary, how- 



< iiki-tian BAPTISM. 

fate this unwarrantable assumption, seeing it is 
plunging and plunging only, that Lb practised by those 

with whom we join issue, nor do I know any other word 
in the English language that expresses their practice 
quite as well as this one does ; submerge is the next best, 
lie this as it may, however, their practice is to plunge 
. and this aud this only, they assert, is bap- 
tism ; and they say the Greek word haptizo means this, 
' ; neither more nor less." It is necessary that this should 
listinctly noticed, as Baptists, so-called, seem to pre- 
fer the word immerse, though it is a somewhat ambiguous 
word, and docs not fairly express their practice, i 
much, then, as this word is that which best expi 
their practice, and as they claim it to be the synonym 
of baptize, we will use it in these discussions, as appro- 
priately expressing that for which they contend. -and to 
which wc object. 

The most favorite arguments of the Anabaptists in 
r of plunging are drawn from the record of the baptism 
by John, and from the record of the baptism by Philip, 
and arc all based vpon the assumption, that certain 
words liav: the meaning which they attach to them, and 
no olLcr. Now we purpose to prove that the revere 
this assumption is true, and will thus take away the very 
foundation of their arguments, and render them worth- 

Afl John's baptism is so much relied upon by the 
well, just here to call attention 
to the l'aet that, his baptism was not Christian Ba] 

Bequently, roperly bo claimed as a pat- 

tern for Chris go by. The following remarks 

will suffice to show that John'.- baptism was not Chris- 



POSITION OF ANABAPTISTS STATED. «* 

tian baptism. 1. John's baptism was " unto repent- 
ance,'' and the parties baptized professed faith in a 
Saviour to came. 2. Christian baptism is the initiatory 
fight into the Christian Church; but when John Bap- 
tized, the Christian Church had no existence. 3. While 
John's baptism was " unto repentance,'' Christian bap- 
tism is the seal of justification already received, as cir- 
cumcision was. Hence when those who had been bap- 
tized by John, believed; and were justified in the Chris- 
tian sense, the Apostles administered Christian baptism 
to them, as we learn from the following Scripture ; 
" Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to 
Ephesus ; and finding certain disciples, he said unto 
them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye be- 
lieved ? And they said unto him, We have not so much 
as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he 
said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized ? And 
they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John 
verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying 
unto the people, that they should believe on him which 
should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When 
they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the 
Lord Jesus. Acts xix. 1-5. See also Matt. iii. 5. It 
is entirely unnecessary to say any more to prove that 
John's baptism was not Christian baptism. And as the 
baptism of our blessed Lord is constantly referred to by 
the Anabaptists, who tell us that we must follow Jesus, it 
may be well to remark that neither was that Christian bap- 
tism, nor was it the same as that which John administered 
to his countrymen ; it could not be unto repentance, for 
Jesus had no sin to repent of, neither could it be the seal 
of his justification, for he never was pardoned ; nor was 



4 I EKBTLLH UAPTISM. 

it the right of initiation into the Christian Church, for 
the Christian Church did not yet. exist ; but like the 
Jewish high-priest, he was thus initiated into the priests' 
office ; it was also the sign of the baptism by the Holy 
Ghost, and that was administered by the Spirit " de- 
scending upon him." Thus we might fairly reject all 
the arguments drawn from John's baptism without say- 
ing any more. >Ve will not, however, rest our cause 
here, but will now proceed to refute their assumption, 
viz., that the words' baptizo, en, eis, and elc have the 
meaning which they say they have, and no other. 

We now take up the word baptizo; and here let it 
be distinctly noticed that the advocates of plunging as 
the only mode of baptism, give us the word plunge as 
the synonym of the word baptize, and their practice is 
plunging } and only plunging ; nor will they admit that 
anything short of this is baptism. We have nothing to 
do, then, with the words, dip, immerse, overwhelm, or 
any other; their use only tends to deceive / baptizo we 
are told means to plunge the whole body under, and their 

itioe corresponds with the assertion; they do not dip, 
they do not itm a n t rse, they plunge only ! 

The question, then, is simply this : does baptizo 
mean to plunge, u neither more nor less? " To refute 
this assumption we have only to quote a few texts where 
the word occurs, and substitute the \vovd plnnyc for the 
word // ipi 

Luke xvi, 24. u Send Lazarus that he may plunge 
the tip of his finger in water and cool my t rogue." 
John xii. 20. "H« to whom I shall p w hen I 

have plunged it." Lev. xix. 13, he was clothed in a vesture 
plunged in blood."' .Matt. xx\i. 28. He that plungelh his 



POSITION OP ANABAPTISTS STATED. 5 

hand with Mo in the dish, the same shall betray me." 
Mark xiv. 20. " One of the twelve that plungeth with 
me in the dish." John xiii. 26. u He it is to whom I 
shall give a sop when I have plunged it." Mark vii. 4, 8. 
" And when they come from market, except they plunge 
they eat not. And many other things there be, which 
they have received to hold, as the plunging of cups, and 
pots, and brazen vessels, and tables." The word Minon, 
here translated tables, means, more properly, couches, or 
beds; more especially those couches or lounges upon 
which the Jews reclined at their tables ; these were, say, 
fourteen feet long, more or less. Now what do you think 
of plunging these lounges, or tables, under water before 
eating? The idea is so absurd that the mere mention of 
it is sufficient. But this is only one of the numerous 
absurdities implied in the assumption to which we object. 
It will be remembered, of course, that baplismos in this 
passage, is rendered washing, by our translators, but the 
assumption to which we object will have it plunging ! 
But we proceed. Heb. ix. 10. "Divers plungings, and 
carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of re- 
formation." Heb. vi. 2. " Of the doctrine of plungings, 
and of laying on of hands/and of resurrection of the dead, 
and of eternal judgment." What think you of the doc- 
trine of plungings? Matt. iii. 11. " Indeed plunge you 
with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after 
me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to 
bear. He shall plunge you with the Holy Ghost and 
with fire." If the advocates of plunging insist on the sub- 
stitution of in for ivith, then the reading will be " He 
shall plunge you in the Holy Ghost and in fire!" If 
they prefer this rendering they are welcome to it ! But 



<; ( IIKISTIAN BAPTISM. 

wc think men of sober judgment will not hesitate to pro- 
nounce both renderings absurd, and intolerable. Yet 
this must be the rendering or the assumption which 
we object must be given up. " Then cometh Jesus from 
( I alilee to Jordan unto John, to be plunged of him. But 
John forbade him, saying, I have need to be plunged of 
thee, and comest thou to me ? " Acts. xi. 16. " Then 
remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said 
John indeed plunged in water ; but ye shall be plunged 
in the Holy Ghost." Nothing prevents such language 
from being blasphemy but the good intention of those 
who use it. In Matt. xx. 22, 23 it is difficult to get the 
word plunge in at all ; but if we substitute the word 
■plunge for the word baptize, these verses will read thus : 
11 Are ye able to he plunged with the plunging that I am 
plunged with ? " " Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and 
ha plunged with the plunging that I am plunged with." 
Mark i. 4. "John did plunge in the wilderness, and 
preach the plunging of repentance for the remission of 
sins." John xii. 50. u But I have a plunging to be 
plunged with ; and how am I straitened till it be accom- 
plished." \<N x. 37. "That word, I say, ye know. 
which was published throughout all Judca, and began 
from Galilee, after the plunging which John preached." 
xiii. - 1. li John preached the plunging of repen- 
tance to all the people of Israel." In Acts xix. 3, we 
read, M And be .-aid unto them, Unto what then were ye 
:/,ed ? And t hoy said, Unto John's baptism." The 
w<nd lure rendered unto, is, in the original. < is, and the 
adyocatef of plunging rest their arguments, as we shall 

show by-and-by, npoo the assumption that cis always 

means into * now lei us aubetitute into for unto, in t.iis 



POSITION OF ANABAPTISTS STATED. 7 

verse, and plunge for baptize, as they claim we should, 
and the passage will read thus : " And lie said unto 
them, into what then were ye plunged? And they said, 
into John's plunging ! " Now who but an ignorant fan- 
atic would charge the inspired writers with talking such 
consummate nonsense as this transaction indicates ? And, 
remember this is the correct translation if the assumption 
here opposed be true ; and it is to obtain such a transla- 
tion as this that the Anabaptists have got up their new 
Bible ! 1 Cor. xii. 13. " For by one Spirit are we all 
plunged into one body." Once more, according to this 
assumption, Rom. vi. 3 and 4 will read thus : " Know 
ye not that so many of us as were plunged into Jesus 
Christ, were plunged into his death ? Therefore we are 
buried with him by plunging into death." 

We think we have now given plunging enough to 
satisfy the most ardent lover of plunging; nay, we 
think enough has been given to make the most ardent 
lover of plunging sick of it ! We beg to assure the 
reader, however, that much more of the same kind might 
be given ; what is here given is a mere tithe of the ab- 
surdities involved in the assumption that baptizo always 
means to plunge, "neither more nor less!" We are 
aware that the better informed among the Anabaptists 
admit that baptizo has other meaning; but, notwith- 
standing this, their arguments are based upon the as- 
sumption that this is its only meaning ; and they give us 
the word plunge as its synonym; and they practice 
plunging and plunging only ! Moreover, we deny that 
either the word dip or the word immerse, properly ex- 
presses their practice, nor does overwhelm, for you may 
overwhelm a man by casting abundance of water, sand 



8 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

or other substance upon him, but that is not plunging, 
and, consequently, not baptism, if the assumption under 
consideration be correct ; and if it is not correct, not 
true, as it evidently is not, all the arguments which as- 
sume its truthfulness, and depend upon such assump- 
tion for their validity and conclusiveness, are worth- 
. till the point assumed is proved, all such arguments 
are a mere begging of the question. In conclusion, we 
beg to remind the reader that the word plunge, in its 
different forms, in the above remarks, represents the word 
baptizo, in its corresponding forms in the original ; and 
if the substitution of the one word for the other in- 
volves us in absurdities, and even implies impossibilities, 
as it evidently does, then to baptize does not mean to 
plunge, and the assumption that it does is not true, and all 
the arguments built upon that assumption, are worthless, 
are a mere begging of the question. This is what we 
claim to have proved, and this is what we undertook to 
prove, in this chapter. 






CHAPTER II. 

Direct Argument taken up— That which God calls Baptism shovrn to be ad- 
ministered by the baptismal element Falling upon the Subject— This is 
claimed to be a Fact— "What God Asserls Baptists Deny— God Baptizes 
by Pouring— This, too, is a Fact— Ilis Frecept and his Practice Against 
Plunging. 

TVe will now proceed to the direct evidence in the 
case, and will show that what God calls baptism is admin- 
istered by the baptismal element falling upon the party 
baptized, not by the party being plunged in that element ; 
and will, consequently, prove that the mode contended 
for and practised by the Anabaptists, is just the reverse 
of God's mode. 

In Daniel iv. 33, we read : " The same hour was the 
thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar : and he was driven 
from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was 
wet [ebaphe] with the dew of heaven." Now, here is no 
plunging ; yet Nebuchadnezzar was baptized. How was 
he baptized ? The sacred writer tells you in these words : 
" his body was baptized with the dew of heaven." Now, 
everybody knows that " the dew of heaven" fell upon his 
body, and God calls this baptism. Nor can the Ana- 
baptists force en, or eis, into their service in this case, 
for neither of these prepositions is found here ; the record 
is, that " his body was baptized ivith the dew of heaven." 
See Septuagint, Chap. iv. 30. It is worthy of remark, 



10 I CHRISTIAN BAPTISlf. 

too, tliat the descent and influences of the Spirit upon the 
human soul are compared to the descent and influences 
of the rain, and of the dew upon vegetation ; hence we 
read thus in Ps. lxxii. 6 : " He shall come down like rain 
upon the mown grass; as showers that water the earth." 
And in Hosea iv. 5, we read : " I will be as the dew 
unto Israel, he shall grow as the lily, and cast forth his 
roots as Lebanon." This is what God calls the baptism 
with the Spirit, and the falling of the dew upon Nebu- 
chadnezzar is baptism with dew, or water. Yet this is 
what the advocates of plunging despise, ircat with con- 
tempt, and pronounce no baptism. It is enough for us, 
however, to know that God calls it baptism; and that 
he calls it baptism is a fact, an indisputable fact ; for 
we give his words, and the chapter and verse where they 
may be found. And, while the descent of the Spirit is 
compared to the descent of water in the form of rain or 
dew, we aver that it never is, and cannot be, compared 
to plunging the body into the water, nor is it ever com 
pared to a dash of water overwhelming the body : such 
figures are of human invention, and, like all other errors, 
flow from the carnal nature, which always seeks for a 
great display, and loses the Spirit in the letter ! To such 
Jesus still has to say : " The flesh profiteth nothing, the 
words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they 
are life." And to such Paul says: •■Are ye not yet 
carnal and walk as men ?" We will now produce another 
text to prove that what God calls baptism was adminis- 
tered by tin 1 baptismal element falling upon the parties 
baptised. In 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, Paul Bays : " All our fathers 
were under the cloud, and all passed through the 
and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the 



THE ELEMENT FALLS UPON THE SUBJECT. ll 

sea." Paul says, "all passed through the sea;" and 
Moses says, " The children of Israel walked upon dry 
land in the midst of the sea." Now, here was no plung- 
ing; the people were u under the cloud," and "upon 
dry land in the midst of the sea;" consequently the 
water with which they were baptized must have fallen 
upon them, whether it came from the cloud, which was 
suspended over them, or from the sea, which was " a wall 
unto them on their right hand and on their left." Here, 
again, was no plunging ; the Israelites were not plunged 
in the cloud, for that was over them ; nor in the sea, 
for the waters were " a wall," on either hand, while they 
" walked upon dry laud." Their number was six hun- 
dred thousand men, beside women and children. To 
talk about plunging all these either in the cloud or in the 
sea is preposterous, yet they were all baptized, and they 
were baptized by sprinkling, and this sprinkling God 
calls baptism. This, too, is a fact, an indisputable fact ! 
Neither were the Egyptians plunged, they were over- 
whelmed with a vengeance ; but, observe, God does not 
call the overwhelming of the Egyptians baptism, but the 
sprinkling of the Israelites he does ! Yet Anabaptists 
treat sprinkling with sovereign contempt, and are wont 
to say of those who were baptized by sprinkling, " They 
were sprinkled, not baptized.'''' In a word, that which 
God calls baptism they say is no baptism ; what God 
affirms, they deny ; these are the facts in the case ! 

Having shown that sprinkling, or pouring, is baptism, 
that God says it is, we now declare that we do not find 
a single text in God's book where that mode of baptism 
practised by the Anabaptists is enjoined, nor do I re- 
member a single text wherein plunging is called bap- 



12 CHRISTIAN BAPnSM. 

tism ; if there is, let the advocates of plunging produce 
it; but, remember, if they should produce fifty such 
texts, it will not affect our argument, for still the fact 
claimed remains the same, viz : that, sprinkling, or pour- 
ing, is baptism — God says it is. Nor does God ever 
plunge when he baptizes, He always baptizes by pouring, 
sprinkling, shedding, falling, as we shall now show. 

The baptism of the Spirit, and more especially that 
peculiar baptism which belongs to the times of the Gos- 
pel, is thus spoken of and promised by the prophets. 
Isaiah xliv. 3 : " For I will pour water upon him that 
is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground : I will pour 
my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine 
offspring." Here the sign, water, and the thing signified, 
the Spirit, are both spoken of, and the administration 
of each is said to be by pouring : " I will pour water," 
" I will pour my Spirit." It is quite evident that the 
pouring of water mentioned in this text represents the 
outpouring of the Spirit — the prophet, or rather the 
Lord, explains the one by the other. The same bap- 
tism is spoken of in the following prophetic promise : 
" And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour 
out my Spirit upon all flesh ; and your sons and your 
daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream 
dreams, your young men shall see visions ; and also upon 
the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will 
I pour out my Spirit." 

In these and similar scriptures we have what our 
Lord calls " The promise of the Father," and what he 
and his apostles call the baptism of the Spirit. I do not 
know that this statement will be questioned as to its 
correctness, but if it should, the following texts will 



THE ELEMENT FALLS UPON THE SUBJECT. 13 

put it beyond question. Luke xxiv. 40 : " And behold I 
send the promise of my Father upon you : but tarry ye 
in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with 
power from on high." Acts i. 4, 5: " He commanded 
them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but 
wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye 
have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water, 
but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many 
days hence." In these prophetic promises there are two 
particulars to which, more especially, we call attention. 
First, the thing promised, baptism : " Ye shall be bap- 
tized with the Holy Ghost." Second, that baptism was 
to be administered by pouring : u I will pour out my 
Spirit;" and the same is said of the outward and visible 
sign of this baptism, the baptism with water: "I will 
pour water upon him that is thirsty." It is evident, 
according to these prophetic promises, that baptism, in 
every sense of the word, was to be by pouring. This, 
too, we claim to be a fact ! 

Let us now turn to the New Testament and see how 
these prophetic promises were fulfilled. Acts ii. 1-4 : 
" And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they 
were all with one accord in one place ; And suddenly 
there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty 
wind, and it filled all the house where they were sit- 
ting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like 
as of fire, and it sat upon each of them, And they 
were all filled with the Holy Ghost." Observe, the par- 
ties baptized on this occasion were all in one room and 
remained unmoved till baptized — there was no plunging. 
Second, The sound " filled all the house where they were 
sitting;" observe, they were sitting when baptized. 
2 



14 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Third, the Holy Ghost filled the parties baptized; and, 
fourth, the symbol sat upon each of them; and, finally, 
all came from above. Now, this is what God calls bap- 
tism; and it was administered by pouring, by falling, 
as both the prophets and Jesus Christ said it would be. 
There was no plunging ! 

Now, when Peter witnessed all this he u Lifted up 
his voice and said unto them : Ye men of Judea, and 
all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, 
and hearken to my words :" " This is that which was 
spoken by the prophet Joel, And it shall come to pass 
in the last days, saith God, I will pour out my Spirit 
upon all flesh; 1 ' "And on my servants, and on my hand- 
maidens, I will pour out, in those days, of my Spirit." 
Here the apostle Peter declares that the prophetic 
promise, quoted above, the promise of the Father, was 
fulfilled by this pentecostal baptism of the Spirit ; and 
this baptism was by pouring, as the foregoing prophecy 
said it would be. 

Here let it be remembered that the Anabaptists as- 
sert, that bapiizo means to plunge, and that it means 
" neither more nor less; " hence they practice plunging, 
and plunging only, and assert that pouring, sprinkling, 
is no baptism ! But it is an indispensable fact that the 
Spirit was poured out and fell upon the disciples, upon 
the day of Pentecost, while they were sitting ! And it 
is a fact equally indisputable, that Jesus Christ and his 
apostles, and the whole Christian Church from then till 
now, call this baptism ! Here, then, is baptism without 
plunging; here is baptism by pouring ; let Anabaptists 
pronounce it no baptism if they dare ! If they do, they 
contradict Jesus and His apostles, together with those 



THE ELEMENT FALLS UPON THE SUBJECT. 15 

who were eve and ear witnesses of the facts, as well as 
the whole Christian Church from then till now ! And 
if they admit that this is baptism, they thereby admit 
that baptism is administered by pouring — administered 
by the baptismal element falling upon the parties bap- 
tized ; and by this admission they concede all we claim, 
and give up the controversy ! Upon one of the horns of 
this dilemma we suspend all the opposers of baptism by 
pouring ; they may choose which they please, for either 
is fatal to their cause, and they must choose one or the 
other ! If they deny that this is baptism, they are in- 
fidels, for Jesus and His apostles say it is ; and if they 
admit that pouring is baptism, they admit all we claim, 
and the controversy is at an end. 

But knowing the obtuseness of those who will not 
admit of anything short of plunging for baptism, we will 
add fact to fact, and text to text, if by any means we 
may convince them of their error, and lead them to an 
acknowledgment of the truth. 

In Acts xi. 15-17, the baptism at the house of Cornelius 
is thus recorded by Peter : " And as I began to speak, the 
Holy Ghost fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. 
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he 
said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be 
baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as 
God gave them the like gift as He did unto us, who be- 
lieved on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I, that I could 
withstand God ? " 

Here let the following particulars be noticed. 1. 
God baptized on this occasion, at the house of Cornelius, 
in the same way that he baptized at Jerusalem, on the 
day of Pentecost; 'the TToly fihost fell on them as He 



16 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

did on us at the beginning." In each case the baptismal 
element fell upon ihcm— they were not plunged in it, 
2. The administration in each case is called baptism. 
John baptized, and God baptized. 3. The latter re- 
minded Peter of the former ; therefore, as we know that 
the latter was by pouring, we infer that the modi in the 
former case was the same, for pouring could not remind 
any one of plunging. If a Baptist should see one bap- 
tizing another by pouring, would he say that it remind- 
ed him of John baptizing by' plunging in Jordan ? And 
if such an association of ideas in the mind of a modern 
Baptist would be considered absurd, and even impossi- 
ble, let such admit that it would be equally absurd and 
impossible in the mind of Peter. Thus we are forced to 
admit that John's baptism with water was similar to 
God's baptism with the Holy Ghost or charge Peter 
with an association of ideas at once absurd and lm] 
ble ! Moreover, we know that God baptized by POUBING, 
and we defy any man to prove that John baptized by 
plunging ! Seeing, then, that the latter is unknown, to 
say the least, and the former confessedly known, common 
sense says follow the known rather than the unknown; 
follow what we know to be God's mode of baptizing 
rather than what we do not know to be John's mode ! 
It follows, then, it inevitably follows, that we have this 
advantage over the immersionists ; we follow what we 
know to be God's mode of baptizing, they follow what 
they cannot prove to be John's mode. And even if they 
could prove that John administered the rite by plung- 
ing, which they can not do, still they must concede to us 
all we claim, namely: that pouring or sprinkling prop- 
erly administered is baptism, FOB God says it is. And 



TUE ELEMENT FALLS UPON THE SUBJECT. 17 

even though they could prove that the Apostles admi 
tered baptism by plunging, which they can not, still the 
fact remains, sprinkling or pouring properly adminis- 
tered is baptism, for God says it is, and by pouring He 
Himself has invariably administered baptism. At best, 
the claim of the Anabaptists rests upon inference, con- 
jecture, or assumption; ours upon the precept and prac- 
tice of the Almighty. Nor would it avail if the Ana- 
baptists could prove that John baptized by plunging, for 
it would not follow that we should, seeing his was not 
Christian baptism, as we have already shown. It fol- 
lows, finally, that the Anabaptists must concede that we 
are right, unless they can prove that God is wrong, for 
both His teaching and His practice are in favor of 
sprinkling and pouring. This is fact, not conjecture, 
not mere inference, not mere assumption ! 

It reallv does appear to us that it would be difficult, 
very difficult, even to conceive of argument more com- 
plete than is our argument in favor of baptism by sprink- 
ling or pouring. 

"We have shown on the testimony of God's own word, 
that our mode of baptizing is God's mode, while the Ana- 
baptists cannot show that plunging was John's mode ; 
we say they cannot ; it is not possible for them to do so. 
And even if they could, that would not prove that plung- 
ing is the right, much less the only mode of Christian 
baptism ; nor would it affect our position at all, for still 
it would remain a fact, that our mode is God's mode, 
and that pouring or sprinkling properly administered is 
baptism, for God says it is ; though Anabaptists are bold 
enough to assert that it is not. 

But immersionists even attempt to make it appear 



]8 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

that the baptism " with the Holy Ghost," on the day of 
Pentecost, was by immersion. They say the Holy Ghost 
filled the place, therefore all the people in the place were 
immersed in the Holy Ghost. The passage referred to 
is Acts ii. 2, and reads thus : " And suddenly there came 
a scund from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and 
it (the sound, not the Holy Ghost) filled all the house 
where they were sitting. And there appeared unto 
them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each 
of them. And they were all filled with the Holy 
Ghost." Here are four particulars to which we call at- 
tention. 1. The sound filled the house where they were 
sitting. 2. The disciples were filled with the Holy 
Ghost. 3. The symbol sat upon each of them. 4. 
And all came from heaven, fell upon, sat upon, was 
shed forth, and filled them. Here was no plunging, 
nor anything like it. The sound came from above and 
filled the place ; the spirit came from above and filled 
the disciples ; and the symbol came from above and sat 
upon each of them ; so that the mode here, also, is just 
the reverse of that claimed by the immersionists : all 
came from above and fell upon them ; they were not 
plunged into anything/ And this is what God calls 
baptism. Defiant of all this, however, immersionists as- 
sert that pouring, sprinkling, falling, is no baptism. 
God says it is, they say it is not. God affirms, they deny. 
These are the facts in the case. 

"We will now group together those terms which God 
uses in reference to, and in connection with, baptism, 
and which, it will be seen, absolutely excludes the idea of 
plunging in the administration of that ordinance. 

John i. 32 : " And John bare record, saying, I saw 



THE ELEMENT FALLS UPON THE SUBJECT. 19 

the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it 
abode upon him." Luke xxiv. 49 : " And behold I send 
the promise of My Father upon you : but tarry ye in the 
city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from 
on high.-'' When God baptized with the Holy Ghost on 
the day of Pentecost, Peter said: "This is that which 
was spoken by the prophet Joel, And it shall come to 
pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out My 
Spirit upon all flesh. 1 ' See Acts ii. 16, 17. Also at 
verse 33 we read : " Therefore being at the right hand 
of God exalted, and having received of the Father the 
promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which 
ye now see and hear." Acts x. 44 : " While Peter yet 
spake these words the Holy Ghost fell on all them which 
heard the word." Verse 45 : " On the Gentiles also 
was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts xi. 
15 : " The Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the be- 
ginning." Titus iii. 5, 6 : " But according to His mercy 
He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and the re- 
newing of the Holy Ghost ; which He shed on us abun- 
dantly." Acts i. 5 : " For John truly baptized with 
water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." 

Now it is an indisputable fact that the baptism here 
spoken of was administered by descending, shedding, 
falling, pouring ; not by plunging ! And, observe, this 
baptism which was administered by pouring, is spoken 
of in connection with John's baptism : " For John truly 
baptized ivith water, but ye shall be baptized with the 
Holy Ghost." To say that Christ plunged the people in 
the Holy Ghost would be utterly intolerable, if not blas- 
phemous. And we have no authority to use different 
terms in each case; God does not; the terms which He 



20 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

uses to express John's administration are the very same 
that He uses to express His own. John baptized with 
water, lie with the Holy Ghost. Therefore, as we know 
that God baptizsd by pouring, we have no right to as- 
sume that John or the apostles baptized by plunging, 
and no man living can prove that they did ! And, ob- 
serve, the terms here quoted refer both to the outward 
and the inward baptism; the outward and the inward 
sealing. The symbol, as well as the thing signified, fell 
upon them. But the advocates of plunging will have 
the party plunged in the symbol The idea is alike ab- 
surd and unscriptural, and therefore could never proceed 
from God. It certainly is the offspring of ignorance 
and superstition. Moreover, there is nothing in religion, 
absolutely nothing, of which plunging is the symbol. 
But pouring is most strikingly symbolical. Hence, as a 
symbol of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, it has been 
practiced from time immemorial. Oil, it is well known, 
was poured upon the heads of high functionaries, as sym- 
bolical of the Spirit's descent upon them. But who ever 
thought of plunging them in the oil to signify that 
thing ! The fact is, the more I investigate this subject, 
the more I become convinced that plunging for the pur- 
pose of administering Christian baptism is of human in- 
vention; I verily believe that God never appointed it, 
and I am sure no man can prove that he did ; but a 
child can prove that he appointed pouring and 
sprinkling, just as soon as he is capable of reading 
God's book, for there the fact is written so plainly that 
he that runs may read. And, we may add, it is not 
likely that God would appoint both pouring and plung- 
ing as symbolical of one and the same thing, for they 
are entirely dissimilar. 



CHAPTER III. 

The idea that Christ's baptism and that of Christians are symbolical of Christ's 
burial, has no countenance from Scripture. It is absurd. Romans vi. 8, 4 
fully examined and rescued from their perversions. 

I am aware immersionists would have us believe that 
a plunge under water is an emblem of the burial of 
Christ's body. This idea they attempt to express in the 
following puerile lines : 

"In Jordan's flood the prophet stands, 

Immersing the returning Jews ; 
The Son of God the right demands, 

Nor dare the Holy Man refuse ; 
But plunges him beneath the wave, 

An emblem of his future grave; 
Ye heavens behold the Saviour lie, 

Beneath the flood from human eye."' 

In Matt, xxvii. 60, we are told that "Joseph took 
the body of Jesus and laid it in his own new tomb, which 
he had hewn out in the rock." And immersionists tell 
us that John plunged the living Saviour in the river Jor- 
dan as an emblem of this transaction ; and they will have 
us all plunged under water for the same purpose ! Truly 
it requires a marvellous stretch of imagination to dis- 
cover a resemblance between a dead body being " wrapped 
in a clean linen cloth " and laid in the cavity of a rock, 
and a living man walking into a river and being plunged 
under the water and lifted up again ! They certainly 
2* 



22 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

must be hard up for a case of resemblance -who seek it 
here; and that they seek it here is sufficient proof of the 
truth of the statement just made, viz. : that there is 
nothing in religion of which a sudden plunge under 
water is the type ; for, if there was anything of which it 
is the most feeble type, they would never attempt to per- 
suade us that it is an emblem of a dead body beiDg laid 
in the cavity of a rock ! for between these two transac- 
tions there is simply no resemblance at all. Moreover, 
we are nowhere taught in Scripture that the design of 
baptism is to symbolize Christ's body being laid in the 
tomb. 

But immersionists think, or pretend to think, that 
Paul favors this view, Rom. vi. 3, 4. The whole passage 
reads thus. u Know ye not that so many of us as were 
baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ? 
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into 
death : That like as Christ was raised up from the dead 
by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk 
in newness of life. For if we have been planted together 
in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the like- 
ness of his resurrection : knowing this, that our old man 
is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be de- 
stroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." 

Immersionists say, that, to be baptized is to be 
plunged, and that the word " means neither more nor less." 
Hence they would read this passage thus : " Know ye not 
that so many of us as were plunged into Jesus Christ, 
were plunged into his death ?" Such language is, of 
course^ utterably intolerable ; hence it is evident that to 
baptize does not mean to plunge : and it is equally evi- 
dent that the Apostle in this passage has no reference at 



NOT SYMBOLICAL OF CUEIST'S BURIAL. 23 

all to the mode of baptism. Therefore, as immersionists 
build th»ir argument upon this assumption, the founda- 
tion being taken away the argument becomes worthless, 
or rather is no argument at all. Of this difficulty they 
evidently are conscious, for although the Apostle uses 
three figures in the same connection, immersionists never 
notice any but one of them, viz. that of burying ; whereas 
the apostle speaks of our being buried, planted and cruci- 
fied. Now why do they not insist upon a mode of bap- 
tism that will symbolize planting and crucifying as well as 
burying ? for it is quite evident that the passage coun- 
tenances all three as much as it does either one. The 
fact is, it is impossible to adopt a mode of baptism that 
will symbolize either : Nor was it ever designed that 
we should. This is evident from the fact that the out- 
ward and visible sign in a sacrament is always symbolical 
of something spiritual ; but if you make water baptism 
the sign of the crucifixion and burial of Christ, you 
make the literal to represent the literal, the symbol to 
symbolize the symbol, which is absurd ! Yet this is the 
very thing that immersionists do by their unnatural and 
forced interpretation of this^highly figurative passage. 
Christ's dead body was laid in the cavity of a rock, and 
they say baptism by plunging is symbolical of that ! 

By this interpretation of the passage before us the 
design of the Apostle is wholly lost sight of. The mani- 
fest design of the Apostle is to show that justification by 
faith does not lead to licentiousness in the life of the be- 
liever. 

Having established the doctrine of justification by 
faith he proceeds to meet the objection of its opponents 
thus. " Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound ? 



24 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

God forbid : how shall we that are dead to sin, live any 
longer therein." So far from continuing in sin the be- 
liever is dead to sin. This is the Apostle's answer to the 
objection. And this death to sin, or crucifixion of the 
old man, he represents as brought about by the death of 
Christ, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost, with faith on 
our part ; of which faith, water baptism is the appropri- 
ate outward expression ; and, at the same time, the seal 
of the righteousness thus procured, as well as the sign of 
the baptism by the Spirit. " Then," says Mr. Watson, 
(Institutes, vol. ii. p. 658,) " he immediately runs into a 
favorite comparison, which, under various forms, occurs 
in his writings, sometimes accompanied with the same 
allusion to baptism, and sometimes referring only to faith 
as the instrument, a comparison between the mystical 
death, burial, and resurrection of believers and the literal 
death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This is the 
comparison of the text ; not a comparison between our 
mystical death and baptism ; nor between baptism and 
the death and burial of Christ ; either of which lay wide 
of the Apostle's intention." Any one who will read from 
the 6th to the 11th verse of this chapter, will see that 
this is the comparison that the Apostle employs for the 
purpose specified. " Knowing this," says the Apostle, 
" that our old man is crucified with him, that the body 
of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not 
serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now 
if we be dead with Christ we believe that we shall also 
live with him : Knowing that Christ, being raised from 
the dead, dieth no more ; death hath no more dominion 
over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once ; 
but in that he livcth, he liveth unto God. Likewise 



25 



reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but 
alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." 

The sublime and glorious sentiments of the Apostle here 
expressed are briefly these : the believer is " dead to sin" 
and is " thus freed from sin ;" and his former unholy con- 
nection vr ith the world is thus as effectually dissolved, as 
is our literal connection with the world by a literal death. 
And the comparison is between this mystical death and 
separation, and Christ's death; by which his literal con- 
nection with the world was dissolved, and our death to 
sin and freedom from sin secured ; and, in this way, our 
unholy connection with the world is as effectually dis- 
solved, as was Christ's literal connection with the world, 
by his literal death. Now having compared our mysti- 
cal death and separation from the world, to Christ's 
literal death and separation from the world, he continues 
the train of thought and proceeds to compare our mysti- 
cal resurrection to Christ's literal resurrection, thus : 
" That like as Christ was raised from the dead by the 
glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in new- 
ness of life. For if we have been planted together in 
the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness 
of his resurrection. Knowing this, that our old man is 
crucified with him, that the body of sin might be de- 
stroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he 
that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with 
Christ we believe that we shall also live with him. For 
in that he died, he died unto sin once : but in that he 
liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also 
yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto 
God through Jesus Christ our Lord." 

Now to represent the Apostle in all these his sublime 



2G CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

and inspired conceptions, illustrations and argument?, as 
simply attempting a comparison between plunging living 
men and women under water, and laying Christ's dead 
body in a tomb hewn out of a rock, is to degrade this 
noble and inspired production into driveling nonsense, 
and absolutely ignore the noble and glorious end or ends 
which he had in view, namely, to show the nature and 
extent of that change wrought in the sinner upon his be- 
lieving in Jesus ; together with the manner, or way, in 
which it is wrought, and thus refute the slanderous ob- 
jection raised against the doctrine of justification by 
faith, viz., that it leads to a licentious life. And thus it 
is that error always leads from the truth and becomes a 
substitute for it ; and in this case a very pernicious sub- 
stitute ! 






CHAPTER IV. 

The word sprinkle is now taken up— Its use find design shown from Scripture 
— Plunging fur the purpose of sealing is an outrage upon common sense. 

Having rescued from the perversions of the Anabap- 
tists the much abused words baptized, buried ; we now 
take up the word sprinkle. 

This word occurs with great frequency, and in the 
same connection, both in the Old and New Testament. 
"We will here quote a few of the passages in which it oc- 
curs. Levit. xiv. 1,2: " And the Lord spake unto 
Moses, saying, This shall be the law of the leper in the 
day of his cleansing." — " And he shall sprinkle upon him 
that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times," ver. 4. 
At ver. 15-18 we read, " And the priest shall take some of 
the log of oil and pour it into the palm of his own left 
hand : and the priest shall dip his right finger into the 
oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil 
with his finger seven times before the Lord." — " And the 
remnant of the oil that is in the priest's hand he shall 
pour upon the head of him that is to be cleansed." Now 
the oil and blood here spoken of were used for the same 
purpose that water is used for in the sacrament of bap- 
tism, viz., as a sign ; and a little in the palm of the hand, 
sprinkled with the tip of one finger, God considered 
quite sufficient ; but Anabaptists think it quite ridiculous 



28 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

to use so small a quantity ; instead of sprinkling the in- 
dividual with the oil, blood, or water, they would have 
him plunged in it ! But we will quote a few more pas- 
sages. Levit. xvi. 14, " And he shall take of the blood 
of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the 
mercy-seat." Numbers viii. 7, " And thus shalt thou do 
unto them to cleanse them : sprinkle water of purifying 
upon them !" Numbers xix. 18, " And a clean person 
shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it 
upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the per- 
sons that were there.'' Thus were they to do " for an 
unclean person ;" and everybody knows, or should know, 
that baptism with water has reference to moral unclean- 
ness, and to the same thing circumcision referred, and as 
neither blood nor water could cleanse the soul, but was 
applied to the body merely as a sign, a few drops sprinkled 
with the finger answered the purpose. The fact is, the 
idea of virtue is attached to the outward application by 
all those who object to small, and contend for large, 
quantities of water ; and in this way the ordinance is 
perverted and vitiated, and the inward application, which 
is the thing signified, and which alone possesses the 
cleansing power, is wholly lost sight of : and this, in our 
judgment, is a serious objection to the practice of plung- 
ing instead of sprinkling or pouring. But there really 
is no excuse for thus losing the spirit in the letter, for 
God has made the design of the outward application suf- 
ficiently plain, as the following quotations will show. 
Isaiah lii. 15, " So shall he [Jesus] sprinkle many na- 
tions." Ezckicl xxxvi. 25—27, " Then will I sprinkle 
clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all 
your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse 



SCRIPTURAL VIEW OF SPRINKLING. 29 

you. A new heart also -will I give you, and a new spirit 
will I put within you : and I will take away the stony 
heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of 
flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause 
you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judg- 
ments, and do them." Hcb. ix. 19, " For when Moses 
had spoken every precept to all the people according to 
the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with 
water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both 
the book and all the people." Heb. x. 22, " Let us draw 
near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having 
our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience." Ilcb. xii. 
24, " If'e are come to Jesus the mediator of the new co- 
venant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh bet- 
ter tilings than that of Abel." 

Thus all these sprinklings end in that which they 
typify, namely, the sprinkling, the cleansing of the soul 
by the blood of Jesus : and a few drops answered this 
purpose as well as a river, or a sea, and much better ; 
but man, poor, ignorant, carnal man, must improve upon 
God's way of it ; instead of having the sign or seal ap- 
plied to the person, he, forsooth, must have the person 
plunge in it : the idea is unnatural and absurd in the ex- 
treme ! Baptism is a sign and seal, as circumcision was ; 
and, of course, the seal should be applied to the party to 
be sealed, not the party to the seal ! It is thus that God 
uses the seal, as the foregoing Scriptures do most incon- 
testibly show. And the following text affords still more 
striking evidence, if that be possible. " After that ye 
believed ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of pro- 
mise." — Ep. i. 13. It is obvious that the Apostle here 
speaks of the same baptism, the same scaling, which was 



30 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

the subject of promise in the texts quoted above. " I 
will pour out my Spirit upon you," " Ye shall be baptized 
with the Holy Ghost." It is to this promise that the 
Apostle refers when he says. u After that ye believed ye 
were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." The sym- 
bol fell upon the body, the Spirit upon the soul. So it 
is in the administration of the sacrament of baptism : the 
symbol, the seal, which is water, falls upon and seals the 
body, the Spirit falls upon and seals the soul. This, 
then, is another ground of objection to plunging. God's 
method, or mode, of baptizing includes, and very strik- 
ingly expresses, the idea of sealing, while plunging utterly 
excludes that idea ; the idea of plunging for the purpose 
of sealing is an outrage on common sense. 



CHAPTER V. 

The assumption that en, eis, and e7c, always mean in, into, and out of, ia 
refuted, and the argument built thereon, shown to be worthless, a 
mere begging of the question. 

"We now take up the argument which immersionists 
ground upon the assumption that the Greek prepositions 
en, eis, and eh, always mean in, into, and out of. On 
this assumption it is confidently asserted that John bap- 
tized in Jordan, that Jesus came up out of the water, 
and that Philip and the Eunuch went down into the 
water, and came up out of the water, and, finally, 
that they must all have been plunged under the water ! 
Hence this famous argument is made up of three assump- 
tions, viz., that these words mean what immersionists say 
they mean, neither more nor less ; second, that all the 
parties mentioned went into the water and were baptized 
in it ; third, that, therefore, they must all have been 
plunged under the water. Now in all this there is ab- 
solutely nothing but assumption, which assumption we 
now proceed to disprove. 

We will first take up the preposition en. Now, ob- 
serve, we do not deny that the Greek word en sometimes 
means in ; but we do deny that it always has this mean- 
ing. Mr. Thorne says, " From an accurate investigation 
of the subject," he finds that, " in our version of the New 



32 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Testament, the translators have rendered en, at, on, or 
iciih, three hundred and thirteen times. But lest the 
immersionist should say that our translators should have 
rendered en, in, in all these places, we will quote a few 
passages, which will, we think, demonstrate that it would 
be highly improper, in many instances to render en, in. 
And here I beg to state that I have examined the origi- 
nal for myself, and am prepared to say that it reads as I 
here state. Matt. iii. 11. "I indeed baptize you en 
water eis repentance : but he that cometh after me is 
mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear : 
he shall baptize you en the Holy Ghost, and fire." Now 
let en, and eis, in this passage be rendered in, and into, 
and then the passage will read thus, " I indeed baptize 
you in water into repentance :" — "but he shall baptize 
you in the Holy Ghost and fire." And if we render. 
baptize, plunge, in this text, as immersionists say we 
should, the case will be still worse : then the text will 
read, " I indeed plunge you in water into repentance :" — 
" but he shall plunge you in the Holy Ghost and fire." 
Now in addition to the absurdity, not to say blasphemy, 
of this rendering, it leaves us without any baptism at all, 
either literal or spiritual ; nothing but plunging in water 
into repentance and in the Holy Ghost ! By this ex- 
hibit any one can see the absurdity and the untruthful- 
ness of the asLumption here opposed. Take another in- 
stance. In Romans viii. 34, we read, " Who is he that 
condemneth ? It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is 
risen again, who is even at the right hand of God." The 
word here rendered at is, in the original, in one of my 
Greek Testaments en, in the other eis. Now according 
to the assumption here opposed, this text would read, in 



GREEK PREPOSITIONS. 33 

the one, " who is even in the right hand of God," and in 
the other, " who is even into the right hand of God !" 
This presents the absurdity and untruthfulness of the as- 
sumption with similar clearness. We have examined 
many other texts where this preposition means at, b>/, 
near to. See, for instance, Luke xiii. 4, where our Lord 
speaks of " the Tower en Siloaui." Certainly the tower 
was not in the pool, or well, but at or near it. In one 
of my Greek Testaments the words are, "Ho purgos eis 
to Siloam ;" " the tower into Siloam," according to the 
assumption here opposed ! In Matt. ix. 35, we are told 
Christ " healed every sickness, and every disease among 
the people." The word here rendered among, is in the 
original en, and in one of my Greek Testaments eis, 
hence according to the claims of immersionists this text 
should read, " every sickness and every disease in, or into, 
the people ! Let these few out of many texts suffice to 
show the untruthfulness and the absurdity of the assump- 
tion here objected to, and we think now fully refuted. 

The preposition eis may now come under notice. The 
arguments in favor of immersion are based on the assump- 
tion that this word always means into. In Matt. xxi. 1, 
we read "And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and 
were come to Bethpbage, unto the Mount of Olives." 
Here eis is rendered nigh, with regard to the one place, 
and to with regard to the other, for it is evident Jesus 
and his companions could not enter loth places at the 
same time, they being distant from each other. In Matt. 
xvii. 27, Peter is commanded to " go eis the sea, and cast 
an hook." It is evident that Peter is not here com- 
manded to go into the sea to cast in thither his hook ; to 
cast a hook into the sea at Capernaum it was not neces- 



34 CHEISTIAX BAPTIS1E 

sary that lie should go into the sea. probably not practi- 
ce ; hence our translators have rendered eis, to. not 
into, and they had as much authority bo to translate in 
the narrative of John's baptism, and that of Philip : and 
immersionisti have no more right to place John in Jor- 
dan, and Philip and the Eunuch in the water, than they 
have to place Peter in the sea at Capernav 

Aets xxiv. 15. "And have hope toward God,'' not 
into God. Matt xviii. 15. " If thy brother shall tres- 
pass against thee, !? heir eis is rendered against, for it 
would not be proper to say trespassed into thee, any more 
than it would have been proper to savin the former text, 
hope into God. Mark iii. 29. u But he that shall 
pheme against the Holy Ghost. 5 ' Here again eis is ren- 
dered against, for it certainly would not be proper to 

u blaspheme into the Holj Ghost." Acts xxi: 
B Brought Paul and set him them." Here 

rend: -e. for it wculd not be proper :: 

him into them. In Isaiah xxxvi. 2, we read, " And the 
King :: Assyria sent EacsLa^eh from Laehish :: Jeru- 
salem." In the Septuagint the reading is eh Laehish 
eis Jerusalem. Here it is evident that ek and eis mean 
from and to. not t of nd into, for Babshakeh was 
not sent into Jerusalem. And we have the same author- 
ity to translate to the water, and from the water, in the 
narrative of the Eunnch'e baptism by Philip. In short, 
every scholar knows that both sacred and class: 
use ek. and eis. to express the idc and to. Apo 

and eis are also used in the same connection : hen 

Apo 
Jerusalem, eis Jericho. Also, the w; eth down 

■Jerusalem ::•.. That is. B the way that goeth 

down from Jerusalem to Gaza." 



GREEK PREPOSITIONS. 35 

With regard to ek, or ex, we will simply quote a few 
texts to show the various meanings of that preposition. 
Matt. xii. 33. " The tree is known by its fruit." Here 
eh is rendered by. Matt. xx. 2. " Agreed with the la- 
borers eh dcnariou ;" that is, for a penny. In Matt. xxi. 
19, it is rendered on; in Roin. ix. 21, it is rendered of. 
In short, Mr. Thorne, who has been at the trouble of 
counting, tells us that in the New Testament eh is ren- 
dered from, 186 times, and eis to, or unto, 538 times. 
And in Schleusner's Lexicon of the New Testament, we 
are told that eh has 2-i distinct meanings, or senses, en 
SG ; and eis 26. And yet the advocates of plungino, as 
the only mode of baptism, build their arguments upon 
the assumption that en, eis, and el:, always mean in, into, 
and out of It is true, they admit, at least those of them 
who are scholars, that these words have a great variety 
of meanings; but it is equally true that the arguments 
which they deduce from the narratives of John's and Phi- 
lip's baptism are all based upon this assumption. Indeed 
they admit that the word baptizo has a great variety of 
meanings, yet, strange as it may appear, their arguments 
in favor of plunging are, for the most part, built upon 
the assumption that it always means " to immerse, to dip, 
to plunge, neither more nor less." But that this assump- 
tion is without warrant or plausibility we believe we have 
clearly shown. Nor will the connection in which the 
word baptizo is found in the Scriptures give any counte- 
nance to this assumption; for it is found connected with 
the words fall, pour, shed, sprinkle, and other words of 
similar import. And with regard to the prepositions 
with which it sometimes stands connected, we trust we 
have shown that they give no warrant for the assump- 



36 CHEISTIAN BAPTISM. 

tion : therefore the assumption is utterly without founda- 
tion ! And, let it be distinctly observed, that, at the 
very most, there can be no more than assumption ; for 
no man in his senses can claim that we are anywhere in 
the Scriptures commanded to plunge in the name of 
the Father, and. of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ! The 
utmost that can be claimed, even with the slightest plausi- 
bility, by the advocates of plunging, is that the verb 
baptizo sometimes means to plunge; but even if we admit 
this claim, our admission will not affect our position, for 
still it will remain a fact that sprinkling or pouring is 
baptism, for God says it is, and in that way he always 
administers baptism : nor would our admission afford the 
advocates of plunging any help till they first prove that 
the word has that meaning in Scripture where Christian 
baptism is recorded and enjoined ; and this we know they 
cannot do, while we can prove, and have proved, that it 
means to sprinkle, to pour, and that this is God's mode, 
invariably so. Once again I say, and I say it with all 
confidence, that no man living can prove that God ever 
taught plunging for baptism ; hence those who undertake 
to administer baptism in that way do it upon their own 
authority. And everybody knows, or may know, that 
God never baptized by plunging ! Here are the facts : 
God's precept is pouring ; his practice is pouring ; while 
in favor of plunging there is absolutely not one jot or 
tittle ! Let them disprove this conclusion who can. 



CHAPTER VI. 

A fallacy and its terrible consequences exposed. If Philip and the Eunuch 
did go down iuto the water it would not follow that either was pluuged— 
The question, " why did John baptize where there was much water? " 
answered. 

Just here it may be well to expose the fallacy and show 
the terrible consequences, of taking that which is occa- 
sionally the meaning of a given word, and assuming that 
such is its primary, its only meaning. 

The primary meaning of the Greek word douhs is, 
])oor, exhausted, reduced to poverty. Hence this word 
was used to designate a servant, and finally a slave. Now 
take the latter as the primary, the only meaning of the 
word doulos, and you may prove that all who are em- 
ployed by their fellow men are slaves, yea, and that all 
the people of God are slaves ! It is in this way that 
slaveholders, and the advocates of slavery, have attempted 
to prove that slavery is of divine appointment, is scrip- 
tural, because in the scriptures certain directions are 
given to regulate the mutual relations and obligations of 
kurioi and douloi ; that is, masters and servants. Again 
the primary meaning of the word pistis, is faith, but it 
sometimes means fidelity. Now assume that the latter 
is its only meaning and you may prove that salvation is 
not by believing, but by fidelity, and in this way you 
would overturn the whole Christian system ! Again the 
3 



38 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

primary meaning of the Greek word pneuma, like the 
Hebrew word ruach, is spirit, but it sometimes means, 
wind, air, Now only assume that the latter is its only 
meaning and you may prove from the Bible that God is 
the wind, for our blessed Lord says Pneuma ho Theos, 
that is, according to this assumption, G-od is the wind ! 
In the same way you may prove that man's higher nature 
is mere wind or air ! Again psuche means the immortal 
part of man as distinguished from the body ; but it some, 
times means the breath, and even the blood, because these 
are the essential of animal life, and the primary meaning 
of psuche being life, it is applied thereto in a secondary 
sense ; but its primary application is to the immortal 
part, that being life in the highest sense. Now if you 
take the accommodated meaning of this word and assume 
that to be its only meaning, you will reach the conclusion 
of the Adventists, or Nasoulites, viz., that man has no soul, 
no spirit, that there is nothing of him but mere matter. 
Again deipnon means a supper, a common meal, a feast ; as- 
sume this to be the only meaning of the word and like the 
Corinthians you will reduce "the Lord's supper" to a com- 
mon meal, a feast. Once more. The Hebrew word Sheol 
and the Greek word Hades mean the hidden, the con- 
cealed, the lowest place, or condition ; hence it is applied 
to the grave. Now let it be assumed that the latter is 
the only meaning of the word, and you will reach the 
conclusion, with the universalist, that there is no hell, no 
punishment or place of punishment, in the other world. 

Now, this is precisely the fallacy which, to the igno- 
rant, gives plausibility to what immersionists say in favor 
of their mode of baptizing. They say en means in, eis 
means into, and eh means out of, and so they do ; but, 



A FALLACY EXPOS F.I). 39 

assuming that these arc the only meanings of these words, 
and finding them used sometimes, though not always, in 
the narrative of John's baptism, and that by Philip, 
they say they went down into the water and came up out 
of it, ergo, they baptized by plunging! Now, in precise- 
ly the same way others conclude that man is a mere ani- 
mal, and that there is no future punishment. Such is 
the nature of this fallacy, and such are the terrible con- 
sequences to which it leads, or may lead the ignorant 
and unsuspecting. 

Having shown that the Greek prepositions, en, eis, 
and ek, are employed both by the sacred and classic 
writers to express the ideas near, to, and from, and many 
others, as well as in, into, and out of, we have disproved 
the assumption of the immersionists, viz., that they al- 
ways mean in, into, and out of; and as many of their 
arguments in favor of plunging rest upon this assump- 
tion, it follows that such arguments are worthless: hence 
all their conclusions in favor of immersion, so far as they 
depend upon the statements that John baptized in Jor- 
dan, and that Philip and the Eunuch went down into 
the water and came up out of it, are illegitimate and 
worthless ; therefore, if they would prove plunging to be 
the right mode they must derive their proof from a very 
different source, for every scholar knows that the Greek 
prepositions afford no such proof. 

But even though they could prove that Philip and 
the Eunuch went down into the water, that would not 
prove that the latter was plunged under the water, for if 
Philip baptized the Eunuch by sprinkling, they would 
both have to go to or into the water to this end, for it is 
not likely that they had a vessel with them to carry 



40 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

water to a distance, and it is still less likely that the 
water would come up to them in the chariot. Moreover, 
if the text proves that the Eunuch was immersed, it also 
proves that Philip was immersed ; for there is nothing 
said of the one, with regard to going down and coming 
up, that is not said of the other. In short, the language 
employed to record this event, is just such as any one 
would employ where immersion was not so much as 
thought of. It should be observed, too, that if the 
Eunuch was immersed he must have been immersed 
naked, or with his clothes on, for it is not likely that he 
had a change of garments with him, nor is it at all likely 
that he woizld pursue his long journey in the garments 
in which he was plunged in the water, and he did pur- 
sue his journey immediately after being baptized, for we 
are told, " when they were come up out of," or from t{ the 
water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that 
the Eunuch saw him no more, and he went on his way 
rejoicing." I should think he would feel more like 
trembling than rejoicing, if he was sitting in the chariot 
in the same clothes in which he had just before been 
plunged under water ; and there certainly is no intima- 
tion of his having undressed, and dressed again. In 
short, there is nothing in this narrative that would lead 
any one to the belief that Philip plunged the Eunnch 
under water, especially when it is remembered that the 
divinely instituted method of pouring and sprinkling 
had existed among Philip's ancestors for nearly two 
thousand years ! Indeed, the prophecy which Philip 
was explaining to the Eunuch, and which led to the con- 
version and baptism of the latter, contains these remark- 
able words : " So shall he sprinkle many nations." See 



A FALLACY EXPOSED. 41 

last verse of cliap. 52 of Isaiah. Being now a believer 
in him who should " sprinkle many nations," the Eunuch 
at once desired to be baptized, agreeably to the prophetic 
promise now before him, and which Philip was explain- 
ing to him. Now. as sprinkling, not plunging, was speci- 
fied in the passage before them, and as that mode had 
been practised by the Jews from the first until now, and 
that by divine appointment, it is not likely that either 
Philip or the Eunuch would think of plunging on this 
occasion The Eunuch said : " I pray thee, of whom 
speaketh the prophet this ? " Philip told him that it was 
Jesus of whom the prophet spake, and the Eunuch be- 
lived. The prophet said that this Jesus would " sprinkle 
many nations ; " and the Eunuch said : " See, here is 
water, what doth hinder me to be baptized ? " There 
was nothing to hinder him — he was baptized, by sprinkling, 
doubtless, agreeably to the scripture, upon which they 
had just now been meditating. 

It is only necessary to add, that all we have said 
with regard to the baptism by Philip, will apply to 
John's baptism, and is a sufficient answer to the argu- 
ments which the advocates of immersion employ to prove 
that John plunged the people under water ; for their 
arguments in each case are derived from the same as- 
sumption, viz.: that eis, en, and eh mean into, in, and out 
of. Indeed it is not said in the original that Jesus came 
up out of the water. In Matt. iii. 16, the original reads : 
anebe euphiis apo tou hudatos, up straight from the 
water. Therefore, with regard to John's baptism it only 
remains for us to answer the question, " If John did not 
immerse why did he baptize where there was much 
water ? " We reply, if your mind were not unduly occu- 



42 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

pied with the dogma of immersion you would find a 
satisfactory answer to your question in the sacred narra- 
tive. Just read the following : And he came into all 
the country about Jordan preaching the baptism of re- 
pentance for the remission of sins." Here follow speci- 
mens of his preaching and of his exhortations. Luke 
iii. 3 : " Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, 
and all the region round about Jordan." Matt. iii. 5 : 
" John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the bap- 
tism of repentance for the remission of sins." Observe, 
it is not only said that he " baptized in Jordan," but 
also that he "baptized in the wilderness." Hence, I 
have as good a right to infer from these texts that John 
plunged in the wilderness as others have to infer that he 
plunged in Jordan, the same preposition being used in 
each case. In one of my Greek Testaments the words 
are eis ten eremon, in the other en te eremo. 

But my special object in quoting these texts is to call 
attention to the vast multitudes which came to John 
from Jerusalem and the different regions here specified, 
certainly not less than several millions, with their camels, 
&c, to abide there for a length of time to be instructed 
by the great preacher who was the forerunner of their 
long expected Messiah, and who was now preparing them 
for his immediate coming. It is quite evident that such 
vast multitudes under such circumstances, required much 
water for domestic and other purposes. In short, no man 
in his senses would bring such multitudes of human be- 
ings and beasts of burden from a distance to abide for a 
time where there was not much water ; especially in a 
hot season, and in a country where water generally was 
scarce. Moreover, if he was to preach to and baptize 



A FALLACY EXPOSED. 43 

the people dwelling in " all the region round about Jor- 
dan," it was obviously proper that he should have his 
station at Jordan, that being a central position. For 
similar reasons he had his station at another time at 
Enon, where there was a suitable supply of water ; 
though there does not appear to have been the vast quan- 
tities that immersionists would have us believe there was ; 
for travellers find no evidence of there being in Enon any 
more than certain fountains or springs. It is well known 
that camp-meetings in this country are always held where 
there is plenty of water, though I suppose a thousand 
such congregations would not be equal to the vast multi- 
tudes who came to hear this great preacher in the wilder- 
ness, and to be baptized of him. From these consider- 
ations it is evident that John needed much water for 
the millions to whom he preached in the wilderness, 
without supposing that he plunged them all into it! 
The idea is as gratuitous as it is extravagant. How 
is it that we never hear of the apostles baptizing where 
much water was? Evidently because they labored 
where the people were at or near their homes, and, 
therefore, had all the necessaries of domestic life; and, 
there being no plunging, that was sufficient. 



CHAPTER VII. 

The dogma that nothing but Plunging is Baptism is shown to involve what is 
Unreasonable, Inhuman, and even Impossible. 

We must not pass unnoticed the unreasonableness of 
the assumptions here objected to. For instance, is it 
reasonable to suppose that one man plunged millions of 
people in a river, u in the wilderness," where neither 
himself nor the millions thus plunged had any home or 
any of the conveniences of domestic life ? Is it reason- 
able to suppose that all these vast multitudes had changes 
of raiment or gowns for the purpose? or that they were 
plunged into the river having on theni the only suit of 
clothes they had ? or that the countless multitudes 
should live in the wilderness with their wet garments on 
till they dried upon their persons ? or is it reasonable 
to suppose that these vast multitudes were exposed and 
plunged into the river naked ? Is it reasonable to sup- 
pose that John himself was naked, or that he lived and 
labored in his wet clothes, or had a sufficient number of 
changes of raiment of " camel's hair ?" Is it reasonable 
to suppose that any man could live in the wilderness, or, 
rather, in the ri^er > and plunge under water such vast 
multitudes of people from Jerusalem, from Judea, and 
from " all the region round about Jordan ? " When a 
man baptizes a few in a river in these days he is glad 



BAPTISM BY PLUNGING UNREASONABLE. 45 

to hasten to his comfortable home and change as quickly 
as possible; and the poor trembling female must be 
carried home in a carriage, or to the nearest house, 
and stripped as quickly as possible ; or if there are a 
dozen or twenty to be baptized it will require several 
Sabbaths to do this little work, because a sufficient 
number of gowns cannot be procured ! I wonder how 
long it would have taken John to baptize several mil- 
lions in this way ! Is it reasonable to suppose that a 
few apostles plunged three thousand men and women 
on the day of Pentecost, not in Jordan or in Enon, 
where much water was, but in Jerusalem, where little 
water was, and all this in a few hours at most; for 
most of the day was evidently occupied by preaching 
and other religious exercises ? Is it reasonable to sup- 
pose that God has made plunging so essential that there 
can be no baptism, no admission to the sacrament of 
the supper, no admission into the Christian church, yea, 
no church at all, without it ; although there are countries 
where water cannot be had unless in very small quanti- 
ties by melting the snow, for large bodies of water are 
covered over with ice fifteen or twenty feet thick, while 
multitudes of others live in dry and parched deserts 
" where no water is ? " Is it reasonable to suppose 
that an infinitely wise, kind, and merciful God would 
exclude from the sacrament of baptism, from the 
sacrament of the supper, and from the Church itself, 
millions of the feeble, the sick and the wounded ; simply 
because they are in a state which renders it imprudent, 
yea wicked, and even impossible, to plunge them under 
water, when his own instituted method may be adopted 
without risk to the feeblest of them? For instance, 
3* 



46 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

thousands of our wounded, sick and mangled soldiers, 
are obtaining salvation by faith in our adorable Jesus. 
Must they be deprived of the sacraments, of the seal of 
the covenant of grace, and shut out from the Church of 
God, simply because their poor mangled and sick bodies 
cannot be plunged under water ? I ask, is all this scrip- 
tural ? Is it reasonable ? Is it humane ? Is it not 
rather cruel and absurd ? Yet all this is implied, is 
included, in the claims of the immersionists ! 



CHAPTER VIII. 

The appeal to antiquity is simply superstition, cruelty, and absurdity, appealing 
to superstition, cruelty, and absurdity — Many superstitious and absurd opin- 
ions and practices specified as having obtained in the nominally Christian 
Church at a very early period— It is difficult to mention any one religious 
dogma that i.s more clogged with difficulties than is the dogma of plunging. 

But, to support these unscriptural, unreasonable, in- 
human and cruel claims, immersionists appeal to antiquity. 
This is none other than superstition, cruelty, and absurdity, 
appealing to superstition, cruelty, and absurdity for help ! 
What absurdity is there that may not claim kindred with 
antiquity ? Not being satisfied with the simplicity of 
the divine institutions, men soon began to add to them to 
make them more impressive. And this work commenced 
even before the apostles were called away. But as early 
as the latter end of the second, or the beginning of the 
third century, the practice of washing before pouring was 
adopted ; then partially immersing followed by pouring ; 
then immersing three times, annointing with oil, signing 
with the sign of the cross ; imposition of hands, exorcism, 
eating milk and honey, putting on white robes, and other 
superstitious observances worthy of the dark ages. As 
early as the third century some, in receiving the sacra- 
ment of the supper mixed water with the wine; others 
used water only ; while others used bread and cheese. 
The Ophites had a tamed serpent which they caused to 



4 8 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

twine round the bread, then they kissed the serpent and 
afterwards partook of the bread. The Zanzalians con- 
tended that the scriptural baptism was a baptism with fire ; 
and their mode was to brand three times with a red hot iron. 
The Jovinians taught that grace received in baptism 
could never be lost. The Hieraxites taught that all in- 
fants would be damned, for they held that the procuring 
cause of salvation was knowledge ; and this of course left 
no chance for the poor infant ! The Novatians taught 
many absurdities, and being confident that they only 
were right, they, of course, re-baptized all who joined 
them, and who had been baptized before. The Yalentin- 
ians baptized in the name of the Father, his Son, and 
the mother of the world ! And as to the Donatists, they 
taught that baptism administered by any but their own 
party was invalid, and that they had authority to remove 
all errors and corruptions from the Church ! Now all 
these and numerous other errors and absurdities, and 
even blasphemies, were taught in the second, third, and 
fourth centuries. Nor were these errors confined to the 
vile sects such as those noticed above, but what was 
called the orthodox church soon became deluged with 
pernicious errors and superstitious rights and ceremonies ; 
and many of the leading ministers, such as Tertullian, 
Origen, and Augustine, largely contributed thereto ! Such 
men were zealous, and swayed the masses with their elo- 
quence, but they were miserable theologians. And why ? 
I answer, because they relied upon their own ability and 
upon human philosophy to learn and teach what only can 
be learned and taught from the word of Grod. Moreover, 
many of them still clung to errors which they had con- 
tracted before they embraced Christianity. Such was the 



PLUNGING BESET WITH DIFFICULTIES. 49 

case, for instance, with Augustine,who had been a Man- 
ichean before he embraced Christianity. And such was 
the case with many others who still retained some of their 
former errors, and embraced others; all of which they 
attempted to incorporate with the Christian system. But 
it is useless to dwell upon this feature of antiquity. It 
is well known that the nomiually Christian Church be- 
came corrupt at a very early period. <: The ancient 
Christians," says Wall, " when they were baptized by 
immersion, were all baptized naked, whether they were 
men, women, or children. They thought it better repre- 
sented the putting off of the old man, and also the naked- 
ness of Christ on the cross ; moreover, as baptism is a 
washing, they judged it should be the washing of the 
body, notof the clothes." " There is no ancient historical 
fact," says Robinson, " better authenticated than this." 
Now when immersionists appeal to antiquity in favor of 
immersion, why don't they faithfully follow antiquity, 
and baptize men, women, and children naked ? But so 
far are they from following antiquity that they do not 
baptize either men or women naked, and as for children, 
they do not baptize them at all, either naked or clothed ; 
and yet they boast of following antiquity, and loudly 
complain that we do not copy after their example ! 
"Well, while we regret that they follow antiquity in some 
things, let us be thankful that they do not in others, for 
we certa'jly do not wish them to follow antiquity as to 
the naked mode ! "We, however, think it would be much 
wiser for them to follow the Bible and let antiquity go, 
or only follow it as far as it followed Christ ! 

Now if immersionists infer the practice of John the 
Baptist, and that of the apostles, from the practice of the 



50 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Christians of the third and fourth centuries, they must of 
course reach the conclusion that John and the apostles 
baptized men, women, and children naked ! And if so, a 
marvellous scene must have been presented at Jordan, 
and Enon, in the days of John ; and a still more marvel- 
lous scene must have been presented in Jerusalem on the 
day of Pentecost. We leave it to your imagination to 
depict the scene J The following quotation from Wall, 
however, will somewhat relieve the difficulty. " They, 
however, took great care for preserving the modesty of 
any woman who was to be baptized. None but women 
came near till her body was in the water ; then the priest 
came, and putting her head also under water, he departed 
and left her to the women. 1 ' If this was the method on 
the day of Pentecost, when three thousand persons were 
baptized, the good sisters in Jerusalem must have had a 
busy time of it ; for we may safely presume that sixteen 
or eighteen hundred of them were females, for in a revi- 
val there are usually more females than males converted. 
Before this day there were only a very few Christian wom- 
en in Jerusalem, and we may presume that they were the 
only women that would attend to this work ; and these 
few women, according to this showing, must have im- 
mersed the bodies of some sixteen hundred women, while 
the apostles only popped their heads under the water, 
and then left them to the women who put them in to 
take them out again, and dress them. There was no 
body of water in Jerusalem in which three thousand 
could be immersed, neither could they be immersed in 
one, or even in fifty baths, in a few hours ; therefore, if 
they were immersed at all it must have been in very 
many baths, in different and distant parts of the city ; 



PLUNGING BESET WITH DIFFICULTIES. 51 

then the question arises, how could a few apostles run all 
over the city, from bath to bath, to immerse three thou- 
sand in a few hours? for they " were added to the church 
the same day." Moreover, most of these baths or cisterns 
were in the hands of Jews, who were the deadly enemies 
of the Christians, and would not be likely to let the 
Christians have their baths. But a still greater difficulty 
presents itself just here. How could the few Christian fe- 
males who were then in the city run from bath to bath, 
all over the city, and put, say, sixteen hundred females 
into them, and take them out again and dress them, 
after the apostles had put their heads under ? How 
could they do all this in a few hours ? Now it is evi- 
dent that the advocates of immersion must account for 
these, or for still greater difficulties. It should be ob- 
served, too, that the women baptized the bodies of the 
women, while the apostles, on this hypothesis, only 
baptized their heads ! Here, too, another question 
arises, viz., which part of the performance was most 
orthodox, that of the women, or that of the apostles ? 
One might say of them as Socrates said of living and 
dying, " which is best the gods know," for I suppose 
even immersionists themselves cannot tell. And, by the 
way, there is a similar difficulty connected with modern 
immersion ; for the priest only plunges about one half of 
the body, while the individual immerses the other half by 
walking into the water, so that there is only partial im- 
mersion by the priest after all ; and still the question 
remains to be decided, which part of the body received 
scripture baptism ? Or did either ? The advocates of 
plunging will please answer ! 



52 CHEISTTAN BAPTISM. 

It is really difficult to mention any one religious 
dogma that is more clogged with difficulties and absurd- 
ities than is this dogma of exclusive immersion : nor 
does it stop with difficulties and absurdities, for, as we 
have seen, it includes positive impossibilities ! 



CHAPTER IX. 

Summing up— A great variety of Particulars are Specified — Plunging was, and 
Is, connected with Superstition and various Errors, and is doubtless the 
Offspring of Superstition— Proselyting, causing Proselytes to Kenounce 
their Baptism is very serious— Unreasonableness of the supposition that 
the German Fanatics discovered what all the wise and the learned both 
ancient and modern have failed to discover— It is the duty of Zion"s 
Watcbmea to Save their People from being Proselyted — The sincerity of 
the Anabaptists in crying for Union under certain circumstances is very 
questionable while they teach as they do — We are not. at liberty to reject 
a Divinely appointed Method and adopt another, especially when that 
other is very objectionable in itself— Nor is the Church at Liberty to leave 
to the choice and whims of Men to Decide where it is her duty to Teach 
what God has already Decided— Taylor's Pictorial representations show- 
ing the Ancient mode of Baptism. 

And now, having said this much, we may sum up the 
evidence and rest our cause. The amount is briefly this : 
God's mode of baptizing is by pouring, shedding, sprink- 
ling. In a word, by the baptismal element falling upon 
the party baptized, invariably so ! this, with all who be- 
lieve the word of God, i3 an indisputable fact. Second. 
In the word of God that is called baptism where water 
fell vpon the Israelites, and upon Nebuchadnezzar, by 
sprinkling or by pouring : this, too, is a fact ! Third. 
There is not in all God's word so much as one clear text 
in favor of plunging, as being the divinely appointed 
mode of baptism ; this, too, is a fact ! Fourth. God 
has appointed sprinkling or pouring, as the appropriate 
sign of baptism by the Spirit, and as the appropriate 



54 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

sign of cleansing by the blood of Jesus ; this, also, is a 
fact ! To these facts we may add a fact mentioned by 
Richard Watson together with the inference that he 
draws from it : " The superstition of antiquity appears 
to have gone most in favor of baptism by immersion ; this 
is a circumstance which affords a strong presumption 
that it was one of those additions to the ancient rite 
which superstition originated." To this judicious remark 
may be added the fact that superstitious and grossly er- 
roneous sects still go most in favor of plunging. As 
instances, it is only necessary to refer to the Mormons, 
Campbellites, and others, who, as is usual with the advo- 
cates of plunging, seem to make plunging the one thing 
needful ! And, by the way, this fact itself affords strong 
reason to suspect that plunging is of superstitious origin, 
for it has always been the characteristic of the superstitious 
and grossly erroneous to make their own inventions of 
more importance than the teachings of God's word. The 
prominence which Baptists, so called, give to their pecu- 
liar dogma is well known. They are proverbial for their 
proselyting proclivities. And the inducement which 
they invariably hold out to those whom they would pros- 
elyte from other churches is, that they will plunge them, 
or, as they prefer to express it, immerse them, taking care 
to assure them that short of this there is no baptism, and, 
consequently, no admission to the Christian Church, no 
right to the Sacrament of the Supper, and, in short, that 
they must remain, if not immersed, " aliens from the 
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants 
of promise, having no hope, and without Grod in the 
world/' I have often wondered why there was such a 
remarkable uniformity among Baptists with regard to 



BUMMING DP. 5o 

these two things, viz. : laying great stress upon being 
plunged, and making mighty efforts to proselyte from 
other churches; but I now see that the reason is obviously 
this, viz. : Most of those who join that church are led 
to do so by the teaching here specified, and, consequently, 
believe that plunging, and plunging only, is baptism ; 
and for this reason they recognize all others, all who have 
not been plunged, as being excluded from the common- 
wealth of Israel, as stated above. And now being in the 
Church, and constantly under the same teaching, the 
original impression becomes more and more deep, and 
they, of course, become more and more bigoted and ex- 
clusive, and looking upon all outside of their Church as 
being in the deplorable condition of unbaptized heathen, 
they soon become zealously engaged in the work of pros- 
elyting, and to obtain proselytes they hold out the same 
inducements that had been held out to themselves, and that 
had proved successful. Hence it is that Anabaptists are 
so unanimous in this particular, especially in connection 
with a revival which may be progressing in a given 
locality : then immersion is their alpha and their omega ; 
and consequently, those who join them do so, in most 
intances, on this single consideration. Thus it is that 
plunging and proselyting go together ! This attempt 
to account for the proselyting proclivities of the Anabap- 
tists, and for their zeal and unanimity in this regard, is 
really the best apology we can make for them ; for if 
they believe that those whom they proselyte, or attempt 
to proselyte, from other churches, are really in the cove- 
nant of grace and in the fold of Christ, their proselyting 
practices deserve much severe censure. 

But, however we may apologize for the proselyting 



56 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

practice of the x\nabaptists, it must still appear to be a 
very serious matter when it is remembered that they cause 
all whom they proselyte from other churches to renounce 
their previous baptism, as being no baptism, and, conse- 
quently, to recognize and declare their plunging to be the 
only baptism ! Now, it is not possible, on calm reflection, to 
view this as being a matter of little or no importance. Just 
look at it again. Here are those who say that God, for 
Christ's sake has pardoned their sins, that he has given them 
the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry " Abba, Father." 
That Spirit now bears witness with their spirits that 
they. are the children of God; they were baptized, say, 
by their spiritual father, who has grown old and gray- 
headed in the service of his Master, and whose labors 
by the Divine blessing- have been instrumental in the 
salvation of multitudes ; and by him these persons have 
been received to the communion of saints, amongst 
whom they have lived, we may suppose, for several years, 
rejoicing in hope of the glory of God; and being fed 
with the bread of life by that same spiritual father, and 
being helped on their way by those with whom they 
first united, they are still going on their way rejoicing. 
Now let us suppose that one of these Anabaptists comes 
along and artfully persuades some of these, perhaps in- 
experienced and unsuspecting, that they never received 
Christian baptism, that they must follow Christ down into 
the water, that they must be buried with him in bap- 
tism, that Philip and the Eunuch went down into the 
water and came up out of the water. And after mix- 
ing up all these terms so as to convey the idea that 
they all mean immersion, for he will not use the word 
plunge, though he means it, he sums up by assuring 



SUMMING UP. 57 

those unsuspecting and inexperienced oues that sprinkling 
is a modern invention, an invention of popery, that im- 
mersion was the only mode practised for more than fifteen 
hundred years ! Finally, in short, he persuades them to 
renounce their former baptism, as not being Christian bap- 
tism, and leads them down to the river and plunges them 
under the water. The work is now complete ; with their 
former baptism they have been persuaded to renounce 
their former Church as not being a Christian Church, 
and those nitherto recognized and loved as Christian 
brethren and sisters, are recognized and loved as such no 
longer; they will no longer with them surround the 
Lord's table, as they had been wont to do, nor will they 
allow them to come and surround the table that is 
spread in their new home ; nor will they sit at the 
Sacramental table with the venerable man whom they 
long loved as their spiritual father, or if they would, 
those who have proselyted them will not allow them, 
nor will they allow him to come and partake with them ; 
already there is fixed between them a great gulph ! 
These are facts, and with such facts I could fill many 
pages, and it was the repetition of such facts, of late, 
that led me to preach and write as I have now done. I 
say the repetition, for with such doings as these I have 
often been pained and grieved for many years ; and I am 
sure that my experience in this particular is not much 
different from that of other ministers who have labored 
where the Anabaptists had a Church. It was thus that 
their fathers commenced their operations in the days of 
Martin Luther, as we shall by and by show, and their 
children but too faithfully copy fater their example. 

Now, whether we believe that the baptism thus re- 



o8 CHRISTIAN BAPTISE! 

nounced was, or was not, Christian baptism, the case is 
a very serious one. If it was not, then all ministers ex- 
cept those of the Anabaptist persuasion are leading the 
people astray, and both themselves and their people are 
unbaptized, as were the countless millions of ministers and 
members who have lived and died in other than the Ana- 
baptist denomination in past ages ; and all this notwith- 
standing the great learning, great knowledge, thorough 
investigations, marvellous researches, deep piety, and 
unquestioned holiness, of multitudes of them ; yes, not- 
withstanding all this, we must conclude, if these proselyt- 
ing Anabaptists be correct, that they all died ignorant 
and destitute of Christian baptism ! And it was reserved 
for such men as the ignorant and fanatical John Matthias, 
a baker of Haerlem, and John Boccold, a journeyman 
tailor of Leyden, in Germany, to obtain a knowledge of 
Christian baptism, while the learned and studious Me- 
lanchthon, and the great reformer, Luther, were left to live 
and die alike ignorant and destitute of it ! But if all 
this be too monstrous to be believed, then we are forced 
to the startling conclusion that these proselyting re- 
baptizers renounce Christian baptism, declaring it to be 
no baptism, and lead others, especially the inexperienced 
and unsuspecting youth who have recently been both con- 
verted and baptized, to do the same, simply because they 
were baptized by sprinkling or pouring ; and this is done 
in defiance of the facts, the indisputable facts, that God 
instituted sprinkling and pouring, that he calls sprinkling 
and pouring baptism, and that he himself has invariably 
baptized by pouring, never by plunging ; and, finally, that 
no man living can refer us to a single text of scripture 
to show that God ever appointed or practised plunging. 



SUMMING UP. 59 

We have already specified the chapters and verses 
where all these facts, except the last, are asserted by 
some of the plainest and most unmistakable utterances 
that have ever reached us from the lips of the Most 
High ! And the last is the fact that he has not ap- 
pointed or practised plunging as the mode of baptism, 
at least that no man can show us where he has done 
so. If any can refer us to the chapter and verse, let 
them do so, and if they do, we will give up this fact, 
but even then all the other facts will remain ! It is 
evident, then, that the practice of the re-baptizers is 
serious, awfully serious. God pardons, regenerates, 
adopts, and baptizes precious souls, and they pronounce 
that baptism no baptism, and cause the parties thus bap- 
tized to do the same thing. God seals his children with 
the seal of the Christian covenant, and they efface, or 
attempt, to efface that seal and pronounce it no seal. 
And for that baptism they substitute plunging, and for that 
plunging, as the mode of baptism, they cannot produce 
one clear text from God's word, while, at the same time, 
it is a positive fact, if the Bible be true, that God both 
teaches and practises baptism by sprinkling and pouring. 
I say this is serious, awfully serious. And I give it as 
my solemn conviction that when these re-baptizers ap- 
proach any church to pronounce its members uubaptized 
and to persuade them to renounce their baptism, leave 
their church, be plunged and join the church of the 
re-baptizers, they should be rebuked and repelled with 
all diligence and by the use of every proper means. 
I believe it is the bounden duty of God's watchmen to 
do so ; and they are recreant to their trust if they per- 
mit the re-baptizers or any others to come in and unsettle, 



60 CHRISTIAN BAPTISil. 

pervert, and lead away their young converts and others 
who, in consequence of inexperience and limited knowl- 
edge in some things, are liable to be led astray by 
designing men, whose object is to build up their own 
organization, and thus, as Paul expresses it, M make a 
gain of them ; " or, as Jude expresses it, " having men's 
persons in admiration because of advantage." This, we 
are confident, is the object of many of these proselyting 
teachers, while many of their members, it is hoped, are 
simply guided by a mistaken zeal. But whatever may 
be the motives of these proselyters, it is unquestionably 
the duty of the Christian shepherd to watch over the 
flock committed to his care, and not allow these prose- 
lyters to steal away his sheep. If, however, the Ana- 
baptists honestly believe that there is no baptism, no 
entrance to the Christian church but by plunging, and no 
church but that which is composed of those who have 
been baptized by plunging, let them go out into the world 
and convert sinners, and then let them plunge, dip, or 
immerse them ; any way, so that they bring them to 
heaven ; but let them not undertake to pervert and steal 
the members of other churches by telling them that such 
churches are not Christian churches, and that their bap- 
tism is not Christian baptism — let them not do this. 
Neither let them, as they often do, especially at the time 
of a revival, cry out for union with us while they thus 
believe and teach concerning us. We really believe that 
union is an impossibility while they thus believe and 
teach, nor can they blame us for questioning their sinceri- 
ty when they cry for ,union under such circumstauces. 
And I here give due notice to all whom it may concern, 
that I will, God being my helper, promptly drive from 



SUMMING UP. 01 

the fold, of which I am the appointed shepherd, a"il who 
may approach it for the purpose of stealing the sheep 
under my care ; nor will I, in future, allow the too-often 
deceptive and hypocritical cry of union to prevent my 
doing so. And I shall consider it my special duty to 
look after those who may be converted by our own labors ; 
these are emphatically our children, and we may not allow 
them to be stolen from us. I have in the past, for the 
sake of peace, been more tolerant with proselyters than I 
mean to be in the future. I feel a good deal like the 
honest Quaker of whom it is said, that he held to his 
principle of non-resistance till the pirates were boarding 
his ship, then he seized his cutlass and began to chop off 
their hands, exclaiming, " Keep thou thine and we'll keep 
ours !" That's my principle exactly. And I wish all to 
understand it. And I think that is the proper way to 
have union. And those who would not have their hand 
cut off must give over their piratical practices and keep 
on board their own ship ! 

Finally, I take it, that where full and explicit direc- 
tions are not given in the New Testament with regard to 
the observance of any ordinance clearly of Divine ap- 
pointment, such directions are to be sought for in the Old 
Testament ; and if we there find clear and explicit direc- 
tions given by the Almighty and practised by the Old 
Testament church, these are obviously the directions to 
be followed; and we are not at liberty to give directions 
of our own invention as a substitute for them, simply be- 
cause they were not formally repeated in the New Testa- 
meut. Now, it is a fact, as we have already shown, that 
full and explicit directions are given in the Old Testa- 
ment to use water by pouring or sprinkling as a sign of 
4 



62 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

the baptism of the Spirit, and also as a sign of moral 
cleansing by the blood of Jesus ; and as we know that 
baptism is a sign of both these, we are bound to follow 
these Old Testament directions, especially as the prophets 
had already apprized us that Jesus would " sprinkle many 
nations," and as we know that he actually and invariably 
baptizes by pouring, and also that he sprinkles the hearts 
of his people from an evil conscience. See Heb. x. 
22. While furnished with such precept and example, so 
full and clear, I really think that we are not at liberty to 
invent a new method ; much less are we at liberty to 
invent a method that is utterly without precedent and 
that cannot be used either as a sign or as a seal ; nor 
do I think that we are at liberty to leave each one to 
choose a method of his own, simply because the method 
Divinely appointed and practised under the Old Testa- 
ment dispensation is not formally re-enacted under the 
New ! To carry out this rule would be utterly disastrous 
to the Christian system. Of the truth of this statement 
any one will be convinced by a little reflection. For 
instance, by this rule we would do away with the 
Christian sabbath, we would exclude females from the 
holy sacrament, we would do away with family worship, 
and, in short, as we have already said, to carry out this 
rule would be utterly ruinous to the Christian system ; 
but if we follow the common sense rule, to observe and 
do all that the Lord our God has commanded, and never 
abrogated, all will be well. But if I should do away 
with God's method of applying the sign and seal, certain- 
ly plunging is the last method I should think of, for the 
idea of plunging for sealing is absurd in the lust degree, 



SUMMING UP. 68 

nor is there anything in the Christian religion of which it 



And, though I admit that many human inventions 
were connected with Christian baptism, even at an early 
period, I do not admit that baptism proper was utterly 
done away with; on the contrary, it was retained, and, 
like many other things of Divine appointment, it seemed 
extremely difficult to get rid of it. Like truth, it lived 
in the very rubbish of error ; for, after passing through 
their various washings and other inventions, the finale was 
baptism proper by effusion. Of the truth of this obser- 
vation, Taylor, in his Facts and Evidences, gives us very 
convincing proof. This scholarly and laborious investi- 
gator of this subject has presented us with twelve fac- 
similes of pictorial representations of the mode of 
baptism as administered by the ancients. In the course 
of his investigations and researches he found them in 
ancient churches and other places in the East. They are 
the work of Grecian and Roman artists, and unmistakably 
represent the practice of the times to which they belong ; 
and every one of them represents the final act, baptism 
proper, as being administered by effusion. Some of them 
profess to represent the baptism of our blessed Lord by 
John ; one professes to represent the baptism of the 
Emperor, or Constantine, another represents the baptism 
of a King and Queen, and others represent the baptism 
of other persons, some named and others not ; but in 
every instance the water is represented as falling upon 
the subject. "With these representations before us, we can 
but say with Mr. Taylor : " They are vouchers for the 
time in which they were executed; and, though we can- 
not hear the men of that generation viva voce, and we 



64 CHKISTIAX BAPTISE. 

dare not put words into their lips, yet we may see their 
testimon}* - and judge of its relevancy to the inquiry that 
engages our attention !" 

But all this avails nothing with certain men ; they 
still cry out as they plunge, " There was no other way 
practised for more than fifteen hundred years." But 
they probably know nothing about the editor of Calmet's 
Dictionary, or about his facts either ; and, very likely, 
they do not desire to know, for assertion answers their 
purpose much better. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 
CHAPTER X. 

Bitter opposition of Antipcdobaptists to Infant Baptism— Grounds of 
their opposition examined and refuted. 

Bitterly as the Anabaptists are opposed to baptism by 
sprinkling, or pouring, they are still more opposed to the 
baptism of children by any mode. To infant baptism 
they seem to retaiu the same bitterness that characterized 
the founders of their church, who, as D'Aubigne tells us, 
said, " Baptism is the baptism of a dog ; there is no more 
use in baptizing an iufant than in baptizing a cat." 
While in other particulars they differ very much and 
very honorably, from their ignorant and fanatical fathers, 
in this, we must say, they but too nearly resemble them : 
it is well known that they usually speak of the baptism 
of infants with contempt and bitterness ; indeed they do 
not call it baptism at all, but "infant sprinkling." Though 
the child is consecrated to the adorable Trinity in the 
most solemn manner, by God's minister, in the use of the 
most appropriate and impressive ceremony, and accom- 
panied by the most devout prayers of the whole church 
as they bow before the Lord in his house ; yet all this is 
treated with contempt. And, although they do not use 
the coarse language of their fathers, as quoted above, yet 



06 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

the best they can do is to pronounce it " infant sprinkling," 
that is all it amounts to ! Though the minister, the be- 
lieving parents, and the church consecrated the child to 
the adorable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ap- 
plying the seal of the covenant, and offering up the moit 
devout prayers, still these sapient ones can see no more 
religion in it than they can see in the act of the servant- 
maid when she applies water to the child's face before 
dressing it; in either case it is only infant sprinkling; 
that is all ! 

But what reason do they assign for all this ? What do 
they offer in justification hereof? Certainly nothing 
short of very serious and weighty considerations will jus- 
tify this, if anything will. Do they claim that God has 
positively forbidden the baptism of children ? That he 
has positively commanded, saying, " Thou shalt not bap- 
tize thy children at all ?" No, they claim nothing of the 
sort ; no one, however extravagant, ever claimed that there 
was any such command in God's book. What then ? 
Do they claim that this solemn consecration corrupts the 
children, and makes them more wicked than the children 
that are not baptized ? No, I think no one claims this. 
W T hy, then, are they so bitterly opposed to infant bap- 
tism ? What reason or reasons do they offer as a justi- 
fication of their bitter opposition and contempt of infant 
baptism ? They shall speak for themselves. We believe 
the sum of all their reasons are the following : 

They say the command is to baptize those who believe ; 
but the child cannot believe, ergo, the child should not 
be baptized ! In support of this strange reasoning they 
quote the following texts. Acts viii. 36, 37. The Eu- 
nuch said, " What doth hinder me to be baptized ?" And 



QBOUNDS 01 OPPOSITION EXAMINED. 2 

Philip said, " If thou believest with all thy heart, thou 
mavest." Mark xvi. 1G. u He that believcth and is 
baptized shall be saved, and he that belicveth not shall 
be damned." Hero it is assumed that what God says to, or 
of an adult, applies equally to an infant ! Really it is diffi- 
cult to conceive of an assumption more absurd than this. 
There are so many things wrong here, that one hardly 
knows where to commence to point them out. It is as- 
sumed that God makes no discrimination between an 
infant and an adult ; that the provisions of the atone- 
ment are offered to the adult and to the infant upon the 
same terms ; that all God says to the adult race of man- 
kind, applies equally to infants; that you must not limit 
one jot or tittle of all he says to the adult race of mankind 
unless he distinctly tells you to do so ! Can anything 
exceed this in extravagance and unreasonableness ? In 
this way you would first starve to death, and then damn 
all children, and prove conclusively that God had so ap- 
pointed ; for he says, " if any will not work neither should 
he eat; " and he also says, "he that belicveth not shall 
be damned." But infants can neither work nor believe, 
therefore they must first be starved to death and then 
damned ! Now this is precisely the reasoning by which 
infants are excluded from the right of baptism : in each 
case the conclusion is reached by assuming that infants 
are included, where adults only are intended ! In this 
way precisel}", it was, that the ancient sect of heretics 
called Hieraxites, concluded that all children dying in 
childhood would be damned, for they considered knowl- 
edge the procuring cause of salvation, and essential to it ; 
and as infants had not, and could not have knowledge, 
they concluded they could not be saved ! And they could 



68 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

establish their position just as satisfactorily as the Ana- 
baptists establish theirs, for Paul says, " Faith cometh 
by hearing, aud hearing by the word of God." But in- 
fants are obviously incapable of hearing and knowing 
the teachings of God's word, and consequently incapable 
of faith ; and Jesus says, He that believeth not shall be 
damned. Hence the same conclusion is reached, children 
cannot be saved. Moreover Jesus has said, " this is life 
eternal, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ 
whom thou hast sent." But children cannot have this 
kuowledge, therefore they cannot have " life eternal ! " 
Thus the reasoning of the ancient Hieraxites, and that 
of the modern Anabaptists, are exactly the same, aud 
the conclusion the same; only in the one case the dam- 
nation of children is asserted, in the other the reason- 
ers do not assert it, though their reasoning being the same 
implies it ; for if the commission given to the disciples 
proves that infants cannot be baptized, because they can- 
not believe, it as conclusively proves that they cannot be 
saved, that they must be damned. Nay, there is more 
reason for the latter than there is for the former conclu- 
sion, for Jesus does not say, he that believeth not shall 
not be baptized, but he does say, he that believeth 
not shall be damned. And even if he had said, he that be- 
lieveth not shall not be baptized, even then it would not 
follow that infants should not be baptized, for the objects 
of the threat are obviously those to whom the Gospel 
should be preached, but the Apostles were not sent out 
into the world to preach the Gospel to infants, therefore 
the threat had nothing to do with infants, it neither ex- 
cluded them from baptism nor from heaven, any more than 
it excluded from heaven those adults in heathen lands, 



GROUNDS OF OPPOSITION EXAMINED. 69 

who never bad the chance either to hear a preached gospel, 
or to be baptized. The argument which Anabaptists de- 
duce, or pretend to deduce from Philip's address to the 
Eunuch is, of course, based upon the same ridiculous as- 
sumption ; they assume that what Philip says to the Eu- 
nuch equally applies to infants ; that all infants are to be 
saved and baptized upon precisely the same conditions 
that the Eunuch was ; and they would have us address 
all infants ju-t as Philip addressed the " man of Ethiopia, 
an Eunuch of great authority under Candace, Queen of 
the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, 
and had come to Jerusalem to worship/' Yes, the as- 
sumption is that all infants must be treated precisely as 
was this great official, and saved and baptized on the very 
same conditions ! Is it not marvellous that any intelli- 
gent person should assume and reason in this way ? And 
yet, it is upon this assumption, principally, that the Ana- 
baptists base all their opposition to infant baptism ; they 
are ever and anon quoting these texts to prove that in- 
fants should not be baptized because they cannot believe. 
And why ? Because, forsooth, Philip said to the Eunuch, 
" If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest be 
baptized, 1 ' therefore they would have all ministers of the 
Gospel deal with infants just as Philip dealt with this 
great official, the Ethiopian Eunuch, who came to Jerusa- 
lem to worship ! 

Anabaptists say, there is no command in the 2Sew 
Testament to baptize infants, therefore they should not 
be baptized. This argument, if it may be called an ar- 
gument, is like all the preceding; it rests upon a mere 
assumption, which is little, if anything, better than the 
assumptions already exposed and refuted. The assump- 
4* 



70 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

•tion is this ; that no command in the Old Testament is 
binding, or to be observed, unless formally repeated in 
the New. This assumption, if fully carried out, would 
be little less disastrous than the preceding. Now, with 
regard to the commands and teachings of the Old Testa- 
ment, the question is not, are they repeated in the New ? 
but are they abrogated in the New? If not, of course 
the obligation to obey, remains unchanged and unabated ; 
and must continue till the law in the given case is abro- 
gated by Him who enacted it. Now every Christian 
knows, or should know, that the law with regard to chil- 
dren was enacted in the days of Abraham, and its obser- 
vance made binding upon the Church, and it has been 
observed by the church of God, without intermission, 
from then until now ; and that law is recorded in the Old 
Testament, and it is not abrogated in the New ! These 
are the facts in the case, and such facts as defy success- 
ful contradiction. Now the law is simply this ; that 
children should be circumcised, even as soon as they were 
eight days old, and that circumcision was the rite of 
initiation into the Church ; it was also the seal of the 
Covenant ; nay, St. Paul tells us that it was the sign, 
and seal, of righteousness had previous to the performance 
of the rite. Now then, here is the fact, the indisputable 
fact ; that rite which included all that we have here 
specified, was, by the command of God, extended to chil- 
dren, even as soon as they were eight days old ! But I 
will be told that baptism does not take the place of cir- 
cumcision ; I answer, I care not a rush, I am not talking 
about that just now, we will attend to that in due time. 
What I claim just now is simply this; at the time that the 
church was formally organized, the covenant between God and 



GROUNDS OF OPPOSITION EXAMINED. . 1 

his people was ratified with Abraham, who, with his children, 
received the seal of that covenant, and this seal was at the 
same time the sign and seal of RIGHTEOUSNESS previously 
had, and it was also the rite of initiation into the church 
of God., And all this, by the command of God, was secured 
to the infant in common with the parent, and this command 
was never abrogated ! Now, we repeat the statement, and 
we repeat it with increased emphasis, the question is not 
whether this command is repeated in the New Testament ; 
the question is, is it abrogated in the New Testament ? 
To this question there is but one answer, and that is no ! 
We affirm that God has not cancelled this command, nor 
has he cancelled one jot or tittle of the rights, privileges 
and blessings which it secures to children; and if the 
Anabaptists undertake to do so, they do it on their own 
authority, and at their own risk. Instead, then, of the 
Anabaptists asking us, where is this command in the Now 
Testament? we ask them where is it abrogated in the New 
Testament ? And till they can point to the positive an- 
nulment, or repeal of this law, they are bouud to do as 
we do ; and if they still refuse to obey this confessedly 
unrepealed law of God, they do so at their own risk, and 
we must recognize them as transgressors of that law ; and 
as attempting to deprive children of rights and blessings 
secured to them by the blood of the covenant, and by 
the promise and command of the Most High. We say 
the promise and the command: for when God made the 
covenant with Abraham, and specified the rights and 
blessings thus secured, he added, " thee and thy seed," 
and on the day of Pentecost this promise was repeated 
in these words, " the promise is to you and to your chil- 
dren." The practice of attempting to annul or evade a 



72 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Divine law that was enacted long ago, simply because it 
has not been re-enacted, is as absurd as it is pernicious. 
Suppose one should attempt to evade or annul some of 
the laws of this State or nation, and plead in justification 
the fact that they were not re-enacted at the last session 
of the Legislature ; would not the very children tell him 
that re-enactment was not necessary, that every law re- 
mained in force, till repealed by the power that enacted 
it ? And this is specially true of the laws of God. Yet 
the Anabaptists attempt to evade, or annul the law under 
consideration, simply because it has not been formally 
re-enacted or repeated in the New Testament ! I say for- 
mally, for it has been repeated, though not with its origi- 
nal formality, for this was not necessary. 



CHAPTER XL 

It is shown that Infant Baptism takes the place of Circumcision — Early Chris- 
tian Fathers are quoted—Testimony of lYIagius— The Antipedobaptlst 
dogma one of the must modern of religious errors — Baxter is quoted — 
Other Fathers are quoted. 

Tiiougii it is not at all necessary to the validity of 
the position here taken to prove that baptism takes the 
place of circumcision, yet being convinced that it does, 
I will make a few remarks which I think will satisfy the 
unprejudiced that it does. 

Circumcision and the passover are unquestionably 
done away with by Him who appointed them. And Bap- 
tism and the Lord's Supper are unquestionably appoint- 
ed by the same authority. The doing away of the 
former, and the appointment of the latter, took place at 
the same time, and the disuse of the former, and the use 
of the latter, have continued in the Christian Church to 
the present day ; and it is not questioned that the sup- 
per takes the place of the passover ; and, if baptism does 
not take the place of circumcision, then we have nothing 
in its place. But the truth is, this is neither more nor 
less than saying and unsaying, and such saying and un- 
saying as leave the facts unaltered ; for the facts that 
circumcision was done away with, and baptism introduced 
at the same time, and by the same authority, remain 
facts, whatever we may say. And it is both folly and 



7-1 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

contradiction to say that the one does not take the place 
of the other : especially when it is remembered and ad- 
mitted, as it must be, that baptism is what circumcision 
was, viz. : a sign and seal, and also an initiatory rite. 
The amount is this, to express it still more briefly : He 
who appointed circumcision for the purposes here speci- 
fied, has appointed baptism for the same specified pur- 
poses; and the annulment of the one, and the appoint- 
ment of the other, took place at the same time. Now 
to admit all this, and yet deny that the one takes the 
place of the other, is, I maintain, folly and self-contra- 
diction. Folly, because nothing is gained by it, for the 
facts remain, and they comprehend all we claim, viz. : the 
rights of children under the present as under the former 
dispensation. And it is self-contradiction, for that which 
is denied is the very same that has been admitted by ad- 
miting the facts, which must be admitted ; and the facts 
comprehend all we claim. Our claims, therefore, are es- 
tablished with all the certainty of fact, notwithstanding 
the play upon the words take the place of, for the objec- 
tion is really a play upon these words. It is admitted 
that the one was removed, and the other appointed, and 
that the latter answers the purposes of the former, and 
yet it is denied that the latter takes the place of the 
former ! Nonserse ! the fact is, no man would ever have 
said so had it not appeared to him that the admission 
would militate against his system. 

Water baptism is substituted for circumcision be- 
cause, while it answers all the purposes of the former, 
as specified above, it does more. It is more congenial 
with the more mild dispensation of the Gospel, which is 
emphatically the dispensation of the spirit. And it is 



SUBSTITUTED FOR CIRCUMCISION. 75 

a sign of the baptism of the spirit, as circumcision could 
not be. lienor, under that dispensation there was di- 
vinely appointed sprinkling and pouring in connection 
with it ; while under this dispensation baptism answers 
all the purposes. 

It also does away with the distinction which neces- 
sarily existed between male and female while circum- 
cision was in use. The doing away of this distinction, 
by substituting baptism for circumoision, is very forcibly 
and beautifully expressed by the apostle Paul in the fol- 
lowing words : " For as many of you as have been bap- 
tized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither 
Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is 
neither male nor female : for ye are all one in Christ 
Jesus." (Gal. iii. 7, 8 ) To prove that baptism does 
not take the place of circumcision, certain ignorant per- 
sons, and amongst them sometimes females, have urged 
the fact that while circumcision was not, baptism is, ad- 
ministered to females. To such females we recommend 
Paul's very sensible and appropriate advice: " Let them 
ask their husbands at home." And if their husbands 
are as ignorant as themselves, which is very likely, we 
can only sympathize with them. Meantime we claim 
that the words quoted above prove just the reverse of 
what the objector designs to prove by the fact statrd. 
That baptism takes the place of circumcision is evident 
from the following Scripture also. Speaking of our 
completeness in Christ, the apostle says to the Colos- 
sians : " In whom also ye are circumcised with the cir- 
cumcision made without hands, in putting off the body 
of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, 
buried with him in baptism," &c. (Col. ii. 11, 12.) 



76 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

Having quoted this text, Mr. Watson observes, having 
specified other particulars in which baptism takes the 
place of circumcision : " Here baptism is made the in- 
itiatory rite of the new dispensation, that by which the 
Colossians were joined to Christ in whom they are said 
to be ' complete ; ' and so certain is it that baptism has 
the same office and import now as circumcision formerly, 
— with this difference only, that the object of faith was 
then future, and now it is Christ as come — that the 
Apostle expressly calls baptism ' the circumcision of 
Christ;' 1 the circumcision instituted by him, which 
phrase he puts out of the reach of frivolous criticism, by 
adding exegetically, ' buried with him in baptism.'' For 
unless the Apostle here calls baptism l the circumcision 
of Christ,' he asserts that we 'put off the body of the 
sins of the flesh,' that is, become new creatures by virtue 
of our Lord's own personal circumcision; but if this be 
absurd, then the only reason for which he can call bap- 
tism ' the circumcision of Christ,' or Christian circum- 
cision, is, that it has taken the place of the Abrahamic 
circumcision, and fulfils the same office of introducing 
believins; men into G-od's covenant, and entitling them 
to the enjoyment of spiritual blessings." The phrase, 
circumcision of Christ, so evidently means Christian 
baptism, that this close and accurate reasoner does not 
hesitate to say that Paul himself has " put it out of the 
reach of frivolous criticism." Doddridge, too, in his 
notes on the place, takes the same view. Having quoted 
the words " putting off the body of the sins of the flesh," 
he adds, " renouncing all the deeds of it. Your encase- 
ments to this you have expressed by that ordinance 
which I may call the circumcision of Christ ; it being 



SUBSTITUTED FOB CIRCUMCISION. 77 

that by which he hath appointed that we should be in- 
itiated into His Church as the members of it." Thus 
he represents Paul as saying of baptism, ll that ordi- 
nance which I may call the circumcision of Christ." 
The propriety of all this will appear still more clear 
when it is remembered that baptism and circumcision 
symbolize the same thing, namely, the removal of moral 
uncleanness ; though they do it in different ways, yet 
both are very significant of this thing. Hence Philo, as 
quoted by Whitby, says that " circumcision imports the 
cutting off our sinful pleasures and passions, and our im- 
pious opinions." "What circumcision represents by cut- 
ting off, baptism still more forcibly represents by the 
idea of washing away. And Peter, referring both to 
circumcision and baptism, speaks of them as symbolizing 
this moral cleansing by " the putting away of the filth of 
the flesh." Moral impurity is often called filth, both in 
the Old and New Testaments. See, for instance, Isaiah 
iv. 4, Ezek. xxxii. 25, and Rev. xxii. 11. 

After showing, at great length, and by most conclu- 
sive evidence, that Christian baptism takes the place of 
circumcision, Mr. Watson adds: " This argument is suffi- 
ciently extended to show that the Antipaedobaptist 
writers have in vain endeavored to prove that baptism 
has not been appointed in the room of circumcision ; a 
point on which, indeed, they were bound to employ all 
their strength ; for the substitution of baptism for cir- 
cumcision being established, one of their main objections 
to infant baptism, as we will just now show, is rendered 
wholly nugatory." Having adduced the further evi- 
dence here promised, he sums up thus : " If then we bring 
all these considerations under one view, we shall find it 



78 CHRISTIAN BA.PTISM. 

sufficiently established that baptism is the sign and seal 
of the covenant of grace under its perfected dispensation ; 
— that it is the grand initiatory act by which we enter into 
this covenant, in order to claim all its spiritual blessings, 
and to take upon ourselves all its obligations : — that it 
was appointed by Jesus Cbrist in a manner which 
plainly put it in the place of circumcision ; — that it is 
now the means by which men become Abraham's spiritual 
children, and heirs with him of the promise, which was 
the office of circumcision, until the seed, the Messiah, 
should come ; — and that baptism is therefore expressly 
called by St. Paul, 'the circumcision of Christ,' or 
Christian circumcision, in a sense which can only import 
that baptism has now taken the place of the Abrahamic 
rite." After refuting another objection of Antipsedo- 
baptist writers, stated by Mr. Booth, Mr. Watson con- 
cludes thus : " We may here add, that an early father, 
Justin Martyr, takes the same view of the substitution 
of circumcision by Christian baptism : " We Grentiles," 
Justin observes, " have not received that circumcision 
according to the flesh, but that which is spiritual — and 
moreover, for indeed we were sinners, we have received 
this in baptism, through God's mercy, and it is enjoined 
on all to receive it in like manner." AccDrding to this 
father, circumcision is received in baptism, and it is enjoined 
upoyi all ! But this same ancient father is still more 
distinct in the following quotation, which is handed down 
to us as containing his words verbatim : " We Gentile 
Christians are circumcised by baptism with Christ's cir- 
cumcision;" and in support of this view he quotes Col. 
ii. 11, 12. H« also says, " we were discipled in our 
childhood." Now when it is remembered that this father 



SUBSTITUTED FOR CBB I AU1MON. 79 

was born about A. D. 133, and that ho is here defending 
the practice of the whole Christian Church in opposition 
to the Jews, who still contended for circumcision, it must 
be admitted, we think, that this testimony is overwhelm- 
ingly conclusive. Not because his testimony or practice, 
or that of any other man, or number of men, is a rule 
for us when unsupported by Scripture, but because it is 
quite sufficient to show what were the facts with regard 
to the views and the practice of the early Christian 
Church ; so early, that some still living were familiar 
with some of the apostles, at least with the apostle John, 
and his teachings : and their views, according to the tes- 
timony of this father, were, that baptism took the place 
of circumcision ; and, accordingly, that they " discipled," 
that is, baptized in " childhood." Turning to Taylor's 
11 Facts and Evidences," I find that writer furnishes the 
following quotation from this same Justin Martyr : 
M Why, if circumcision be a good thing, do we not use it 
as well as the Jews did ? The answer is, because we 
Gentile Christians are circumcised by baptism with 
Christ's circumcision." Now this shows most conclu- 
sively what were the views and practice of the primitive 
church with regard to baptism. Their views were that 
Christ gave baptism in the place of circumcision, and that 
they practised accordingly; for if these were not the 
views and practice of the primitive church this promi- 
nent minister could not write and publish what every 
Christian then living must have known to be a glaring 
falsehood. It would not be possible, for instance, for a 
prominent minister in the Anabaptist church of the pre- 
sent day to publish a treatise in defence of baptism by 
Sprinkling, and especially in defence of the baptism of 



80 CHRISTIAN BAFTISil. 

infants, asserting that these were the views and practice 
of the entire church of which he was a miuister, and that 
they did so upon the authority of Christ and his apostles, 
and that they had always believed and practised thus; I 
say no such minister could do so while in a sane state ; 
and if he should, of course the whole Anabaptist church 
would contradict and reject his statement. Let it be 
acknowledged, then, as we think every intelligent and 
honest man must acknowledge, that Justin Martyr and 
other fathers could not write thus if these were not the 
views and practice of the primitive church ; and if these 
were evidently the views and practice of the primitive 
church, with what face can Anabaptist ministers tell the 
masses of the people, who know no better, that the bap- 
tism of infants is a modern, a popish invention? The 
best excuse we can possibly make for such ministers is 
that they themselves are ignorant ; " the blind lead the 
blind." Mr. Taylor also gives us the following quotation 
from the writings of John Chrysostom : " There was pain 
and trouble in the practice of that Jewish circumcision ; 
but our circumcision. I mean the grace of baptism, gives 
cure without pain ; and this for infants as well as men." 
Here, as late as the latter end of the fourth century, this 
father still speaks of the " Jewish circumcision" and 
"our circumcision," and by "our circumcision" he tells 
us he means baptism ; and, observe, he is not speaking 
of his views and practice, but of those of the entire 
Christian Church at that time, as Justin Martyr had 
done more than two hundred years before. 

The incident that is recorded as having occurred at 
the Council of Carthage is well known. The substance 
of it is this. One Fedus, not being present at the Coun- 



SUBSTITUTED FOR CIRCUMCISION. 81 

cil, wrote to the presiding bishop, Cyprian, to know 
whether a child should be baptized before it was eight 
days old; to this inquiry Cyprian and the whole Coun- 
cil, consisting of sixty-six bishops, replied that it was not 
necessary to delay baptism till the eighth day. Now I 
will simply ask, could an Antipedobaptist minister 
write thus to a council of sixt}*-six of his brethren ? and 
could such a council reply as did that at Carthage ? To 
these questions there is, of course, but one answer, and 
that is No; such a communication could not be sent to 
such a body and receive such an answer; and, for the 
same reason, it was not possible that such a communica- 
tion could have been sent to the Council at Carthage 
and receive the reply here recorded, if, as we are told by 
the Antipedobaptists, the whole Christian Church then 
believed and practised as they do now ; nor could Fedus 
have thus written, nor was it possible for the Council to 
reply as it did, had not the baptism of children been the 
belief and practice of the primitive church ! What, then, 
can we think of those who assert, as was publicly asserted 
here of late, that the practice of the present Anabaptist 
Church was the only practice " for more than fifteen 
hundred years ?" We certainly have but too much rea- 
son to conclude that such men have learned, and do un- 
derstand the fact, that bold assertions will answer their 
purpose better than argument with a certain class ! 

The fact is, though at a very early period there were 
many departures from Apostolic teaching and practice, 
it does not seem to have occurred to the most daring of 
the inventors of error to deny children the right of bap- 
tism. Hence, when Pelagius was charged with this, he 
seems to have been perfectly shocked, even as much as if 



82 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

he had been charged with murder. Hence he complains 
thus : " Men slander me as if I denied the Sacrament of 
Baptism to infants," and having denied the slander with 
horror, he says, he never heard even of the most impious 
heretic that was guilty of doing so ! See Hibbard on 
Infant Baptism, p. 217. The truth is, the exclusion of 
infants from Christian Baptism is amongst the most 
modern of human inventions, as a religious dogma. 
Hence Baxter says : "lam fully satisfied that you can- 
not show me any society, I think not one man, that ever 
objected to infant baptism till about two hundred years 
ago. I find Christ did once place little children in the 
Church, and no man breathing can show me one word of 
Scripture where ever Christ did put them out again. 1 ' 
"About two hundred years ago." He refers to the 
origin of the Anabaptist views by John Matthias and 
King John of Leyden, and other German fanatics in the 
days of Luther. Before this time, we do not remember 
to have read of a single individual who is even charged 
with excluding infants from baptism, unless it be Pierre 
de Bruis, in the 12th Century, and the record is very un- 
reliable, for the charge is brought against him by the 
Abbot Clugny, his deadly enemy. The charge which the 
Abbot brings against him, is this. The Abbot says : 
" He," Pierre de Bruis, " denies that children, before 
they arrive at years of intelligence, can be saved by bap- 
tism, or that the faith of another person can be useful to 
them, since, according to those of his opinion, it is not 
the faith of another which saves, but the faith of the indi- 
vidual with baptism, according to our Lord's words : 
1 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but 
he that believeth not shall be damned ! ' " From the 



SUBSTITUTED FOR CIRCUMCISION. 83 

quotation itself I am strongly inclined to believe that 
the charge is not truthful ; for the wording of the charge 
conveys to me the idea that the opposition of Bruis was 
not to the baptism of children, but to the Popish dogma 
that children are saved by baptism and cannot be saved 
without it; for the Abbot charges him with denying 
that children " can be saved by baptism," and he no 
doubt did deny that children are saved by baptism in 
the Popish sense ; but could we hear him speak for him- 
self we would, no doubt, hear him deny the other part 
of the charge as Pelagius did, for he was a good man, and 
was burned for his adherence to the truth, in 1126. It 
is probably to this man that Baxter refers when he says : 
" I think not one man." The case of Pierre de Bruis, as 
here referred to, may be found in the History of the 
Vaudois, by Antoine Monastier. 

In addition to the quotations already given from the 
fathers, we will add the following, which we find in our 
memoranda but cannot say what we quoted from ; they 
are, however, faithful quotations, which we made in the 
course of our reading. Irenseus speaks of the baptism 
of u infants, little ones, and children. 1 ' He flourished 
about A. D. 178, and was acquainted with Poly carp, who 
was a disciple of the Apostle John. Origen refers to 
infant baptism in proof of original sin, and says the 
Church baptized infants " because the Apostles com- 
manded it." He flourished in the third century. Am- 
brose, too, refers to the baptism of infants in proof of 
original sin, and says " it was practised in the Apostles' 
times." He wrote in the fourth century. Augustine, too, 
makes a similar statement for the same purpose, and says 
of infant baptism that " it was practised in the Apostles' 



84 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

time." He wrote in the fifth century. In defence of 
the same doctrine, Chrysostom says : " For this reason 
we baptize infants also." He wrote in the fourth cen- 
tury. Tertullian, we are told, advised the delay of in- 
fant baptism, but this whim resulted from another error 
which he had embraced, viz. : that they were saved by 
baptism, and that, consequently, if any one died after 
baptism, before committing sin, such an one was saved ; 
but errorist as he was, he was no Antipedobaptist. To 
these testimonies we may add the fact that the Greek 
Church does, and always did, baptize infants. Speaking 
of Tertullian, Mr. Watson says, vol ii. p. 645 : " So lit- 
tle, indeed, were Tertullian's absurdities regarded, that 
he appears to have been quite forgotton by this time, 
for Augustine says he never heard of any Christian, 
Catholic or Sectary, who taught any other doctrine than 
that infants are to be baptized." — De Pecc. Mor. Cap. 6. 



CHAPTER XII. 

It is shown that Infant Baptism has been practised from Apostolic times— Not 
One clear case of Opposition to Infant Baptism till the Sixteenth Century 
—Appealing to, and Reasoning with, the Antipedobaptists— Astounding 
Facts Stated — They cannot tell ns when the Practice of Baptizing Infants 
Commenced— Wo can tell them When and by Whom Opposition thereto 
Commenced— Infant Baptism the Uncontradicted Practice of the Church 
from Apostolic till Modern Times. 

Now, in view of this overwhelming array of testi- 
mony, and we conld add much more, we will indulge in 
a few brief reflections to which we invite the serious 
attention of all, whether Pedobaptist or Antipedobap- 
tist. And, first, observe, we do not produce the teaching 
and example of either the ancients or the moderns to 
prove that children should be baptized ; though teaching 
and practice so uniform are not to be disregarded even as 
proof, nevertheless, for our authority and proof we rely 
upon the word of Grod. But we produce all this array 
of testimony and practice to prove that infant baptism 
is no innovation, that it has been practised from Apostolic 
times to the present time, as circumcision was in vll the 
previous ages of the Church ! As late as the fifth cen- 
tury, Augustine and Pelagius, who were opposed in other 
things, give their testimony to this, fact, that they never 
heard of one, no not the most impious heretic, who op- 
posed infant baptism, or taught any other doctrine ; and 
Baxter asserts that he never heard of a society, he thinks 
5 



86 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

not a single individual, who opposed infant baptism till 
about two hundred years before his time, that is, till the 
sixteenth century ! What an astounding fact ! For a 
period of some fifteen hundred years, dating from Apos- 
tolic times, not a single clear case of opposition to in- 
fant baptism in all Christendom ; though during that 
period the devil and errorists seem to have introduced 
every imaginable error save that of the Antipedobap- 
tists; for some reason they did not dare to introduce 
this error till the sixteenth century from the Christian 
era ; surely this is one of the most wonderful facts of 
history ! We may safely say, I think, that during this 
period every other doctrine of the Christian system 
was assailed, in one way or other, but it remained for 
the crazy, lawless, German fanatics of the sixteenth cen- 
tury to attack the doctrine, the Christian doctrine, of in- 
fant baptism, and found an Antipedobaptist Church ! 

To the Antipedobaptists we say, " Come now and 
let us reason together;" do not get vexed with our 
statement of facts, or with our reflections upon these 
facts; we are honest, we are sincere, we believe what 
we say, we are searching after the truth as well as 
the facts in the case, and if we know ourselves we are 
prepared to receive the truth wherever we find it. If, 
as you say, infant baptism is an innovation, a novelty, 
a human invention, will you please tell us when and 
where this novelty, this human invention, was introduced, 
and by whom ? Or if you cannot tell us the time 
when, and the persons by whom, it was introduced, will 
you be good enough to point us to a period since the 
Christian era, when it was not practised ? We cannot 
find such a period, Baxter could not find such a period, 



PRACTISED FEOM APOSTOLIC TIMES. 87 

nor could be point to a single society that ever opposed 
the doctrine till the period specified ; nor could any of 
the Christian Fathers point to such a party in their time, 
or " in the old time before them," nor could they point 
us to a period since the Christian era when infant bap- 
tism was not practised. Many others, too, very many, 
of the learned and wise have searched with great care 
and perseverance, but they have all failed, utterly failed, 
to discover a period since the Christian era when infant 
baptism was not practised in the Christian Church. 
Now, if the Antipedobaptists have discovered what all 
others have failed to discover, will they be good enough 
to favor us with the discovery ? Will they tell us at 
what period since the Apostolic times infant baptism was 
introduced into the Christian Church ? As honest men 
they are bound to do this, or never again call it a novelty, 
an innovation. If it is an innovation, how is it that, unlike 
all other innovations, its introduction called forth no oppo- 
sition or discussion ? It is a fact that children were 
received into the Church by the divinely appointed 
initiatory rite from the days of Abraham till the days of 
the Apostles. Now, is it possible that a divine appoint- 
ment of so long standing, of such vital importance, and 
so wide in its application as to embrace all the children 
of all the worshippers of the true God, could be abrogated 
and no one know when the abrogation took place ? Is 
it possible that all the children of all the worshippers of 
the true God could be at once excluded from the Church 
of God without opposition or complaint from either Jew 
or Gentile ? Or, if there was complaint or opposition, is 
it possible that all the facts in the case could have been 
excluded from history, so completely excluded that we 



88 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

do not find in any of the Church Councils the record of 
one jot or tittle of complaint, opposition, or even discus- 
sion with regard to the exclusion of children from their 
long and divinely-appointed place in the Church of God ? 
Is it possible that believing parents could be all at once 
so divested of all natural and religious feeling that they 
could submit to have their children excluded from the 
Covenant and Church of God without offering any resis- 
tance, objection, or even complaint ? Is it possible that 
the Jews, whose children under the former dispensation 
had been received into the Church, received into cove- 
nant, relation to God, and had received the sign and seal 
of the covenant, is it possible, I say, that these Jews could 
all at once submit to the annulment, the reversion, of all 
this without opposition or complaint, especially as no one 
produced, or pretended to produce, a jot or tittle of 
Divine authority for this serious change in the Divine 
constitution ? Is it possible that the unbelieving Jews, 
the deadly enemies of the new dispensation, who sought 
every occasion to object to, and depreciate the Christian 
system, could fail to notice a change which afforded such 
just ground for objection and opposition ? Or if they 
did object and oppose, is it possible that history could be 
entirely silent with regard to these facts ? Is it possible 
that neither Jew nor Gentile, inspired or uninspired, be- 
lieving or unbelieving, should ever record one jot or tittle 
with regard to the change, or the opposition thereto, 
if such change and opposition had taken place ? Now, 
in answer to all these questions we do not hesitate to 
reply, No ; such a change could not take place without 
opposition, complaint, or discussion ; much less could it 
take place without any one knowing when, how, or by 



PRACTISED FROM APOSTOLIC TIMES. 89 

whom it was made. We therefore conclude that the 
change did not take place ; ice must so conclude, for the 
contrary conclusion would be in favor of what we claim 
to be impossible ! 

The Antipedobaptists have not to ask us when, how, 
and by whom their dogma was introduced ; we tell them 
without being asked. We tell them the time when, the 
place where, and the parties by whom their antiscriptu- 
ral dogma was introduced. We tell them the opposition 
that its introduction met with, and who they were who 
made the opposition to it; even Luther, Meiancthon, 
Calvin, and, in short, the entire Christian world, with the 
exception of the few lawless fanatics who introduced it, 
and who were the cause of much disgrace and injury to 
the great reformation. And we refer them to the pages 
of history, where they may find the facts recorded ! And 
we challenge them to show us, to tell us when, where and 
by whom their antiscriptural novelty was introduced 
before this time : and we claim that their inability to do 
so, makes our argument as complete as argument can 
be ! Wall says that Peter Bruis, about 1130, was the 
first Antipedobaptist teacher who had a regular congre- 
gation. (Hist., part 2, c. 7.) Even if this were admitted 
it would not help the matter, it only shows that Antipedo- 
baptism is an innovation of comparatively modern intro- 
duction. But we have already shown that there is no 
evidence that this man ever opposed infant baptism as 
being unscriptural. Bishop Tomlin says that the Ana- 
baptists of Germany took their rise in the beginning 
of the 16th century ; but it does not appear that there 
was any congregation of Anabaptists in England till the 
year 1640. This is without doubt the origin of the 



90 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

present Antipedobaptist church, as we have already 
shown. If they had an existence before then, let them 
show us when and where ! 

Closing his arguments in favor of infant baptism, Mr- 
Watson says : " That a practice which can be traced up 
to the very first periods of the church, and has been till 
within very modern times, its uncontradicted practice, 
should have a lower authority than apostolic usage and 
appointment, may be pronounced impossible. It is not 
like one of those trifling, though somewhat superstitious, 
additions which even in early times began to be made to 
the sacraments ; on the contrary, it involves a principle 
so important as to alter the very nature of the sacra- 
ment itself." Inst., vol. ii., p. 646. Mark these two 
statements in this quotation ; till within very modern 
times infant baptism was the uncontradicted practice of 
the church. Second ; the Antipedobaptist dogma in- 
volves a principle so important as to alter the very nature 
of the sacrament itself ! Let it be borne in mind, then, 
that this Antipedobaptist dogma is not only a novelty, 
but a very serious error, as we shall show more fully 
pretty soon. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

The objection that Infant Baptism is incompatible with Man's Natural Rights 
is shown to be ridiculous— It contains the very germ of Infidelity, and 
even Atheism— Objection that Circumcision was a Civil Contract is 
refuted — Many absurdities exposed. 

Finally, lest all the other objections to infant baptism 
should prove insufficient, Antipedobaptists tell us that it 
is incompatible with man's natural rights ; that baptism 
should be delayed till the child is capable of choosing 
for itself ! This objection is not only ridiculous, but it 
contains the very germ of infidelity. The late Robert 
Owen, the founder of that form of infidelity called Social- 
ism, took the same ground, and insisted that all religious 
instruction should be delayed till the child is at least 
thirteen years old ! Truly the devil spoke like himself 
when he made this proposal ! I say this objection con- 
tains the very germ of infidelity, for it is in direct oppo- 
sition to well-known Bible teaching ; seeing that book 
informs us that God commanded the child to be conse- 
crated to himself, and the seal of the covenant applied 
as early as eight days after the child is born. It is clear, 
then, that the issue is joined, not with us, but with Bible 
teaching, known, unmistakable Bible teaching ! And, as 
we before showed, it will not mend the matter to say that 
baptism does not take the place of circumcision, for the 



92 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

facts are not altered at all ; if baptism is incompatible 
with man's natural rights so was circumcision, seeing it 
laid the child under as much obligation as does baptism. 
Nor will it do for the Anabaptists to say, as they have 
said, that circumcision was a civil contract, and that the 
obligations and blessings involved were of a temporal 
character ; for surely it is not a greater interference with 
the child's natural rights to lay it under obligation to 
serve Almighty God than it is to lay it under obligations 
of a civil or national character. But the fact is, this 
objection of the Antipedobaptists only serves to show 
the desperateness of their case ; for the moral character 
of the Abrahamic covenant, of which circumcision was the 
seal, is unmistakably taught both in the Old and New Tes- 
taments, as the following texts do most clearly show. Jer. 
iv. 4 : " Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away 
the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabi- 
tants of Jerusalem." Deut. xxx. 6 : " And the Lord 
thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy 
seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and 
with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." Deut. x. 15, 
16 : " Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love 
them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above 
all people, as it is this day. Circumcise, therefore, the 
foreskin of your heart, and be no more stififnecked." 
Romans ii. 28 : " For he is not a Jew which is one out- 
wardly in the flesh; but he is- a Jew which is one inward- 
ly ; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, 
and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of 
God." St. Paul says, " Abraham received the sign of 
circnmcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith 
which he had, yet being uncircumcised." A careful 



ABSURDITIES EXPOSED. 

study of these and similar texts, which abound in the OH 
and New Testaments, will Satisfy any one that circum- 
cision was the seal of the covenant of grace, and a Beal 
of righteousness, or justification, previously had, and that 
it was also a sign of moral purity, or sanctilication ; this 
was signified by the removal, or "putting away'' of 
" the filth of the flesh ;" it was also a sign or badge of 
the peculiar relation which the circumcised party sus- 
tained to God. Now, with such teachings as these before 
us, I think it is not sayiug too much to say that it must 
be a bad cause which forces its advocates to say that 
circumcision was merely a civil transaction, and that it 
only involved temporal blessings and obligations. And 
its badness becomes still more apparent, when it forces 
its advocates to say that such a transaction is incom- 
patible with man's natural rights ! for that is a de- 
clared opposition to the teachings of God's word, and is, 
therefore, infidel in its principle, as we before said. 

This objection not only contains the germ of infi- 
delity, but it contains the germ of atheism ; for it assumes 
it to be the natural right of the child to choose whether 
he shall or shall not be consecrated to God Almighty ; 
whether he shall or shall not acknowledge his obliga- 
tions to, and serve God Almighty. This objection as- 
sumes it to be an open question whether the God who 
created and redeemed has a right to put forth such 
claims, and that all these questions are to be left un- 
decided till the child is of age to choose and decide 
for itself; that its judgment and authority in the ease 
are superior to those of the Almighty ; and that the 
Almighty has no right or authority to decide in the 
case till he first consults the child after it is capable 



94 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

of judging in the case and obtains its consent ! It as- 
sumes, too, that revelation and man's natural rights are 
at variance, that the former is subversive of the latter, 
and, therefore, unjust and should not be submitted to ! 
It assumes — what does it assume ? In a word, every- 
thing that is wrong, and nothing that is right. And 
yet we have listened to, and even countenanced, this 
antipedo, this infidel, this atheistical objection, till both 
parents and children in our very churches have learned 
to utter it in justification of their opposition, their dar- 
ing opposition, to the plain teachings of G-od's word ! 

But the absurd, as well as the infidel and atheistical, 
character of this objection deserves specification. If in 
deference to the natural rights of children we may not 
consecrate them to G-od, may not receive them into the 
church, into the covenant of grace, and apply to them 
the seal of that covenant ; may not lay them under 
obligation to serve Glod when they come to the years 
of understanding, what may we do ? On the same 
principle I do not see why we should not leave them 
to choose what teacher they shall have, what school they 
shall go to, what kind of instruction they shall have, 
or whether they shall have any instruction at all ! And 
if we do, I am strongly inclined to believe that they 
will choose the latter ; and if they should, I do not see 
what right we have to oppose their choice any more 
than we had a right to choose for them before they were 
capable of making a choice ! Nor do I see what right 
we have, on this principle, to choose anything for the 
child, not even the kind of dress it shall wear, or whether 
it shall wear any dress at all ! And the probability is 
that it would not, if left to its own choice ! In all 



ABSURDITIES EXPOSED. 95 

likelihood, if left to itself, it would, if it should live, 
be alike destitute of learning, clothing and religion! 
Such, doubtless, would be the result of this Antipedo- 
baptist objection if fully carried out. And after ex- 
perimenting thus upon it for a few years, we would, 
doubtless, have a better knowledge of it than we have 
now; but the knowledge would be very dearly bought ! 
As it is never wise to experinientize upon error ; let us 
rather abide by the good old way, and experimentize 
upon the truth, even the truth enjoined upon us in the 
following scriptures : " Ye stand this day all of you be- 
fore the Lord your God ; your captains of your tribes, 
your elders and your officers, with all the men of Israel, 
your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is 
in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood, unto the 
drawer of thy water : that thou shouldest enter into 
covenant with the Lord thy God, and into the oath, 
which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day." 
And now that your little ones as well as yourselves sus- 
tain a covenant relation to God, see that you consult not 
their choice, but the word of your covenant God, and 
teach them to " observe and do all his commandments." 
" And these words which I command thee this day shall 
be in thine heart : and thou shalt teach them diligently 
unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sit- 
test in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, 
and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." 
Thus, " train up a child in the way he should go, and 
when he is old he will not depart from it." Here you 
have God's command and God's promise ; keep them as 
did Abraham, of whom the Lord hath said, " I know 
him, that he will command his children and his household 



96 CHEISTIAN" BAPTISM. 

after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to 
do justice and judgment." Rest assured of it, that it 
will he much wiser to do this than to leave your children 
" to choose for themselves." If, in reply to all this, the 
Anabaptist should say: "But we do teach our children ;" 
then, my reply is, never more tell us to leave our chil- 
dren " to choose for themselves." Nor are you at liberty 
to choose for yourself, even as to what you shall or shall 
not teach ; you are bound both " to teach and do all that 
the Lord thy God hath commanded thee." And he hath 
taught thee to consecrate thy children, as well as thyself, 
to him in holy baptism ; as we shall now show by proof 
drawn more directly from his own word. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

Direct Scripture proof— Infants bave the necessary qualifications for baptism— 
Tbeir claim more clear than tbat of any adult — Romans, v. 12, 18, 19, ex- 
plained — The infant has the same qualifications for baptism, that Abraham 
had for circumcision ; the same thai believing adults have for baptism— A 
close connection between Infant Baptism and Infant Salvation on the one 
hand, and between Antipedobaptism and infant damnation on the other — lie- 
marks on the moral nature of infants. 

We will now defend infant baptism by a direct appeal 
to the word of God. And in doing this we purpose to 
show that the infant derives its right to baptism, not 
from its parents or from the Church, but from Jesus 
Christ, through whose atonement it has also a qualifica- 
tion for baptism, and that qualification is justification ; 
and both the right to, and qualification for, baptism, it 
has unconditionally. And both the right to, and qualifi- 
cation, for, baptism being unconditional, it will follow, of 
course, that, if any one infant has the right and the qual- 
ification, all infants have ; unless it can be shown that 
Jesus did not die for all; and this cannot be shown till 
it is first shown that the following and similar declara- 
tions contain a falsehood. " One died for all." " He, 
by the grace of God, tasted death for every man." Now, 
we take the ground that what is thus secured to infants, 
cannot be taken from them by the whims and fancies of 
men, nor yet by the enactments of Synods and Councils, 
True, men may deprive infants of baptism as they may 



98 CHEISTIAX BAFTISil. 

deprive them of food, but their right thereto remains 
alienated and inalienable ! 

Having thus stated our position and purpose, we now 
proceed to the proof. 

The first Scripture we quote is from the fifth chapter 
of the Epistle to the Romans. We quote verses 12, 18, 
and 19 together, because they are evidently connected, 
the intervening verses being parenthetical. " Wherefore, 
as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by 
sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have 
sinned. Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment 
came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the right- 
eousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto jus- 
tification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many 
were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many 
be made righteous. 71 

Let us now carefully notice what it is that Paul says 
" came upon all men," and how it came. And, observe, 
we have nothing to do just here with what came, or may 
come, upon any individual by his own individual acts ; 
we have only to do with what " came upon all/' k< by 
one." 

Here are the specifications ; some of them are quoted 
from the parenthetical verses, they being explanatory of 
the verses which we have quoted above : 

■• By one man sin entered into the world." u Judg- 
ment came upon all men." That is, the sentence of the 
judge, or, as we sometimes say, the sentence of a broken 
law; and that sentence is specifically declared to be a con- 
demnation," ;; death." 

We now enquire how was all this brought, or caused 
by one ? The answer is, * ; by one that sinned :" " by 



QUALIFICATIONS FOR BAPTISM. M 

one man's offence ; " " by one man's disobedience ;" by 
" Adam's transgression." 

So much " came upon all men," in the way here spe- 
cified. So far there can be no mistake, for we have Paul's 
declaration for every particular. Of course the judg- 
ment, or sentence, was not fully executed upon our first 
parents, in consequence of the gracious interposition of our 
Saviour. If it had been, it would have extended to their 
unborn posterity, resulting in the non-existence thereof ; 
so that the entire posterity of the guilty pair owe their 
very existence to Jesus ! But we are anticipating the 
next question. 

Having seen what it is that u came upon all by one," 
even by Adam ; let us now see what it is that " came 
upon all men" by one, even by Christ. 

Here, too, let it be distinctly noticed, we have nothing 
to do with what came, or may come, upon any individual 
conditionally, for what is here specified " came " before 
those to whom it " came " were capable of performing a 
condition : this is not only stated by the Apostle at dif- 
ferent times, especially in this chapter, and more especially 
in the verses quoted above, but it is implied in the very 
specifications themselves. The specifications are these. 
" The grace of God ;" " the free gift ;" "the gift of grace." 
And all this "came upon all unto justification of life." 
The " judgment " which " came upon all " was " unto 
condemnation," and the " free gift " which " came upon 
all " was " unto justification of life." In the one case 
" condemnation " came, and life was forfeited ; in the 
other "justification" came, and life was restored; and 
all this, in each case, so far as Adam's posterity was con- 
cerned, without their own personal act: the " condemna- 



100 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

tion," came through Adam, the "justification " through 
Christ. 

But how did this " grace of God," and this " gift of 
grace," come " upon all ?" The Apostle tells us in the 
following words : " By the righteousness of one ; " " by 
the obedience of one." The results of Adam's sin, to 
his infant posterity, are removed by Christ's righte- 
ousness; the results of Adam's " disobedience," to his 
infant posterity are removed by the " obedience" of 
Christ, who " became obedient unto death, even the 
death of the cross." Thus the great Redeemer, the Re- 
storer, has fairly met the results of Adam's " offence," 
so far as his unacting posterity are concerned, and it is 
of them that we are now speaking. The " condemnation" 
that came upon Adam's posterity, by Adam's disobedi- 
ence without their own act, is removed by the "justifi- 
cation " that came through Christ's righteousness, with- 
out their own act. So that every infant sustains a justi- 
fied relation to God, through Christ's atonement, and this 
is its qualification for baptism; and this same justification 
is that which qualifies adult believers for baptism ; and 
it was justification that qualified Abraham for circumci- 
sion ; and all this Paul asserts and proves in the Scrip- 
ture before us. In the last verse of the fourth chapter, 
he says Christ " was delivered for our offences, and was 
raised again for our Sikcuooctiv, justification ; and in the 
eighteenth verse of the following chapter, when speaking 
of what " came upon all " through the sin of Adam, and 
the righteousness of Christ, he says, " by the righteous- 
ness of one the free gift came upon all men unto SiKcuaxriv 
£0077?, justification of life. Now this very blessing he 
tells us Abraham received, not by works, but by faith. 



QUALIFICATIONS FOR BAPTISM. 101 

And in the eleventh verse of the fourth chapter we are 
told " he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the 
righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncir- 
cunicised." The word which in this verse is translated 
righteousness is the same in the original as that trans- 
lated justification in verse 25 of the same chapter, and 
in verse 18 of the following chapter, as any one may sec 
by looking into his Greek Testament ; and Dr. Adam 
Clarke says it " is best rendered justification, as express- 
ing that pardon and salvation offered to us in the Gospel." 
A righteous act, a righteous state, and the act and state of 
pardon ; all are expressed by words, all of which are de- 
rived from the sane root and that root is Auaxio?, which 
means just, or right. Hence we have dikaiothentes, being 
justified ; dikaiosune, the state of being upright ; dikaio- 
sune justice, righteousness; and dikaiosin, justification. 
This word has always reference to law, and is used to 
express something in harmony with, or contrary to, law ; 
as righteousness and unrighteousness. Now, why such a 
word should be used to express the act and state of pardon , 
why the words justified, and pardoned, should be used in- 
terchangeably and synonymously; why they should be used 
to express one and the same thing, as they certainly are 
by this Apostle in the Scriptures now under consideration, 
seems at first sight unaccountable : for pardon has nothing 
to do with law, unless to set it at defiance ; at least this 
is true of pardon as usually understood. For instance, if 
one should take away my property by fraud, and I should 
pardon him fully and sincerely, the law would take no 
notice of my pardon, but would hold him guilty, and pro- 
nounce sentence just as readily after I had pardoned as 
before ; and this is alike true both of human and divine 



102 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

law. Why, then, is the guilty culprit said to be justified 
when God pardons him ? The fact is, God's pardon is 
like no other pardon, because it is in harmony with law; 
and it is in harmony with law, because, though the guilty 
is pardoned, the claims of the law are satisfied, are fully 
met, by the atonement. Though the sinner is pardoned 
there is no compromise with justice, its claims are fully 
met, it is satisfied ; and the sinner now stands acquitted 
in the eye of the law. Hence the same Apostle says, 
" There is, therefore, now, no condemnation to them that 
are in Christ Jesus." And again, " Who shall lay any- 
thing to the charge of G-od's elect ? It is God that justi- 
fieth ; who is he that condemneth ? It is Christ that died, 
yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right 
hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." None 
but God Almighty can pardon thus, no other being can 
possibly do so ; and there was only one way in which he 
could do it, namely, by an atonement; " For," says the 
same Apostle, u If there had been a law given which could 
have given life, verily righteousness should have been by 
the law." Gal. iii. 21. But there was no such law, it was 
only by an atonement, according to the same authority, 
that God could be "just " and at the same time justify 
or pardon. Rom. iii 26. And while this could be done 
only by an atonement, that atonement could only be 
made in the way it was. made ; " there remaineth no more 
sacrifice for sin," says the same authority. 

Now, then, let us sum up, and we shall find the amount 
to be this. The infant has the same qualification for bap- 
tism that Abraham had for circumcision, and that quali- 
fication is justification ; and it receives baptism for the 
same reason that Abraham received circumcision, namely, 



QUALIFICATIONS FOR BAPTISM. 103 

because it is justified; and it receives baptism for the 
s&mcpurpose that Abraham received circumcision, name- 
ly, as the " sign " and " seal " of " righteousness," or 
"justification," previously received : and this right to, 
and qualification for, baptism, it has from the same source, 
the very same source, from which Abraham received his 
right to, and qualification for circumcision. The only 
difference in the caseis this : Abraham received justifica- 
tion conditionally, viz., by faith, but the infant receives 
justification unconditionally ; Abraham's justification re- 
moved the condemnation brought upon him by his own 
transgressions, as well as the condemnation brought upon 
him by the original offence; while the infant's justifica- 
tion simply removes the condemnation brought upon it 
by the original apostacy, it having no act of its own; but 
the result of justification in each case is precisely the 
same, viz., this, the justified party in each case, is placed 
right with regard to the law ; for, as we before observed, 
justification, or pardon, is a relative change, by which 
the relation of the justified party is changed with regard 
to the law, and consequently, with regard to the Law- 
giver. In a word, all who are justified stand accept- 
ed before God the judge, and in the eye of the law, so 
that there is no condemnation for the past. Hence 
infants being thus justified through the atonement, or as 
Paul expresses it in the text quoted above c through the 
righteousness of one," even Christ, they have the same 
right to the seal of the covenant, that believing adults 
have, the same right that Abraham had when he was jus- 
tified, and received the seal accordingly. Now as this 
qualification is received unconditionally, it follows, as we 
said before, that if one infant has it all have it ; and as 



104 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

this qualification is from Christ, and unconditional, it fol- 
lows, too, that the parents have nothing to do either with 
qualifying or disqualifying them ; as they have justifica- 
tion through Christ, and are thus qualified for baptism 
despite the sin of their first parents, so they have this quali- 
fication and right, despite the disobedience of their second 
parents ; they are not qualified for baptism either by the 
faith or the holiness of their parents but by the atone- 
ment of Christ ; if the parents have faith enough to pre- 
sent their children for baptism, that answers all purposes, 
so far as the children are concerned ; and being thus pre- 
sented, it is the duty of the minister of Christ to baptize 
them, and to enjoin it upon the parents to teach them to 
fear and worship that God to whom they have now con- 
secrated them in holy baptism ; and to remind them that 
they are bound by the most sacred obligations, and now 
by consistency itself, to consecrate themselves to that 
God to whom they have consecrated their children. 
I have utterly failed to discover where any minister finds 
his authority for refusing baptism to any infant that 
may be presented to him by its parents for that purpose. 
Finally, from the Scriptures here quoted, I think we 
are inevitably forced to the following conclusions. All 
infants have, through the atonement, unconditionally a 
right to, and a qualification for, baptism ; and that qual- 
ification is the very same qualification that Abraham had 
for circumcision, the very same that believing adults 
have for baptism, namely, justification ; and this justifi- 
cation, of course, does the very same thing for the infant 
that it does for the believing adult, namely, this, it puts 
it right with regard to the law, by removing the con- 
demnatory sentence of the law, for this is the sole office 



QUALIFICATIONS FOR BAPTISM. 105 

of justification, -whether the party be an infant or an 
adult. Thus infants, through the atonement, sustain 
precisely the same relation to the law, and to God the 
judge of all, that believing adults do ; the very same that 
Abraham did when he was justified ; and that is a justi- 
fied relation. Hence we see why it is that infants. :i> 
well as Abraham, " received the sign of circumcision," 
which Paul says was u a seal of the riyhtrousnesx" or 
justification previously had. Now when we know, upon 
Scripture authority, that God commanded Abraham and 
infant children to be circumcised, and know, too, on the 
same authority, that circumcision was a seal of justifica- 
tion previously had, we thereby know that infants as well 
as Abraham were justified, or they would not have re- 
ceived the seal of justification, for that would be affixing 
the seal of justification to those who were not justified ; 
which would not only be an unmeaning act, but a delu- 
sive act. Nay, it would be affixing the seal to an un- 
truth ! 

The conclusion here reached secures the salvation of 
all infants, dying as such. Those who reject this conclu- 
sion are shut up to one of two conclusions, viz., that all 
infants are lost, or a certain part of them ; and if they 
adopt the latter conclusion, they thereby represent God 
as damning infants whom he might have saved, for if ho 
saved a part he certainly might have saved all, seeing all 
were alike incapable of offering resistance to the means 
employed for their salvation ; and if they do not like 
this or the preceding conclusion, then they must adopt 
infant baptism ; for if the infant is justified and fitted tor 
heaven without its own act, it certainly may be, and is 
fitted for baptism without its own act. Thus we B6fi that 



106 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

there is a close connection between infant baptism and 
infant salvation on the one band ; and na equally close 
connection between Antipedobaptism, and infant damna- 
tion on the other ! 

Again, Antipedobaptists " will baptize on profes- 
sion," and on profession only. That is, they will baptize 
one who " indulges a hope that he has met with a 
change." But what does this mean ? Why, it means 
just this, if it means anything to the purpose ; he indul- 
ges a hope that he is justified, or pardoned. So that 
they have not even his word for it, but merely his hope ; 
and upon this evidence they baptize him. But we have 
G-od's word for it that the infant is "justified freely by 
his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." 
And on this evidence we baptize it ! This, then, is the 
difference ; by so much as God's testimony is better than 
that man's professed hope, by so much is our authority 
for baptizing the infant better than their authority for 
baptizing the adult ! And in the same way we reach 
the conclusion, that no adult under heaven has as clear a 
claim to the rite of baptism as has the infant ; because 
we have God's testimony in favor of the justification of 
the infant, while we have only man's testimony in favor 
of the justification of the adult, and that the tesiimony of 
the interested party, the party seeking baptism ; and 
the party judging in the case is also interested, being 
under the influence of a desire to make accessions to his 
church and party ! Nor does the preponderance in our 
favor stop here, for we not only have God's testimony in 
favor of the infant's qualification for baptism, but we have 
his command to apply to the infant the very same seal 
that he commanded to be applied to the adult, viz., the 



QUALIFICATIONS FOR BAPTISM. 107 

seal of the covenant, the seal of justification obtained 
through the atonement ; which justification is obtained 
by the adult conditionally, and by the infant uncondition- 
ally. It follows that he who will have better authority 
for anything that he does, than we have for baptizing 
the infant, must have better than the testimony and 
command of the Almighty ! Truly they are seriously 
defective in Bible knowledge who exclude infants frcm 
Christian baptism : and I do not hesitate to say, that An- 
tipedobaptism originated in an ignorance of, and is at 
variance with, some of the first and most glorious princi- 
ples of the Christian system ; and upon that ignorance it 
is that it depends principally for its propagation ; and it 
is high time that this error and the ignorance of which 
it is the offspring should be driven out of Christendom ! 
Infants are redeemed. Jesus claims them all as the 
purchase of his blood, and says " Suffer little children 
to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the 
kingdom of God." And every minister of Jesus should 
unite with Jesus in rebuking those who forbid their being 
brought to Jesus, and should iterate and reiterate the 
words of Jesus, saying, " Forbid them not." And they 
should unite with Paul in uttering that glorious truth 
upon which we have been commenting, and upon which 
we delight to dwell; " Therefore, as by the offence of one, 
judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by 
the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men 
unto justification of life." These truths should be uttered 
by Zion's watchmen joyously and incessantly ; and should 
come pealing like thunder from every part of Zion's 
walls. And they should be taken up by the inhabitant^ 
of Zion and uttered with such rapturous joy that their 



108 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

voices commingling should be as the sound of many- 
waters : then should the dolorous, owl-like voice of the 
Antipedobaptist be heard no more ! 

If by the sin of our first parents their posterity were 
excluded from the Kingdom of God without their own 
act, and are not restored by the righteousness of Christ 
without their own act, it will follow that Adam did more 
to destroy than Christ did to save, and if so, Paul ut- 
tered an untruth when he said, " Where sin abounded 
grace did much more abound." But as we cannot adopt 
either of these conclusions, we are forced, in this way also, 
to adopt the conclusion which we claim to have estab- 
lished, viz., that the condemnation which came by Adam's 
sin, is removed by the justification which came by 
Christ's righteousness ; and the parties who by that con- 
demnation were excluded from God's Kingdom, and, 
consequently, from eternal life, by a non-existence, are by 
this justification restored thereto. And if they are jus- 
tified and restored to God's Kingdom through the atone- 
ment, we may well say in the language of Peter, :< Can 
any forbid water that these should not be baptized;" for 
a justification received without faith qualifies for circum- 
cision or for baptism just as much as a justification 
received by faith ; for justification is the same whether 
received conditionally or unconditionally. 

In the light of these teachings we are prepared, I 
trust, to see more clearly, and to appreciate more fully, 
the following blessed and altogether glorious words of 
our Almighty Saviour ! " And they brought young 
children to him that he should touch them : and his dis- 
ciples rebuked those that brought them. But when 
Jesus saw it he was much displeased, and said unto them, 



QUALIFICATIONS FOK BAPTISM. 109 

" Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid 
them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I 
say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom 
of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And 
he took them in his arms, put his hands upon them, and 
blessed them.' —Mark x. 13-17. 

Now, with this passage before us, we will call atten- 
tion to, and make a few remarks upon, the following par- 
ticulars, which may be considered the more prominent 
features of the passage. It will be remembered that 
Anabaptists speak of " unconscious babes" as though 
neither God nor man could do anything for them j but 
the following particulars convey a very different idea. 

The first particular to which we call attention is this ; 
infants arc susceptible of the divine Messing, for we are 
told that " Jesus took them in his arms, put his hands 
upon them, and blessed them." I say infants, for Luke 
calls these " little children" infants. 

Now let us not look upon all this as mere form ; 
when " the Lord of life and glory" pronounces blessing 
upon the infant that is brought to him by the parent's 
hands, and by the parent's heart, his utterances are not 
mere unmeaning words ; his blessing means something ! 
Let it be remembered, too, that it is by his righteousness 
that " the free gift came upon all men unto justification 
of life," and that " the blessing of the Lord, it makcth 
rich," and infants have that blessing. Yes, they have it, 
for we have heard " the Lord of life and glory" pronounce 
his blessing upon them, even upon the infants that 
were brought unto him. AVho, then, would refuse to 
bring their infant children to this " Lord of life and 
glory ?" and when parents bring their infant children 
6 



110 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

unto him, Who will dare to " forbid them ?" "We know 
none in Christendom who would do so but Antipedo- 
baptists ! Let it be remembered, too, that if one infant 
is capable or susceptible of receiving the " blessing of 
the Lord," all are ; for all infants are alike incapable of 
offering resistance to the divine will. let not parents 
or ministers resist that will, by doing what those did with 
whom Jesus was " much displeased j" and remember, he 
is as much displeased with that act now as he was then ! 
But rather than admit that Jesus is capable of blessing 
the soul of an infant, Antipedobaptists have invented 
the marvellous idea that the infants here spoken of were 
brought to Jesus to have some bodily disease healed I 
By this invention they represent the disciples as forbid- 
ding their being brought for this purpose, a thing they 
never did, for it was customary to bring all manner of 
sick persons to Jesus : and they represent Jesus as in- 
sisting that diseased infants should be brought to him 
for the purpose of being healed, and as giving this rea- 
son, " for of such is the Kingdom of God." Certainly 
this objection does not deserve further notice. 

We next call attention to the phrase, " Of such is the 
Kingdom of God." Now if we understand this phrase, 
" Kingdom of God," or as St. Matthew expresses it, 
M Kingdom of heaven," to mean the future home of God's 
people, then these words of Jesus assure us that infants 
are heirs of that Kingdom with all those adults whose 
names are written in heaven. But if we are to under- 
stand by this phrase, the Church of God upon the earth, 
then we are taught to recognize infants as properly con- 
stituted members of that Church, which they certainly 
were under both the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensa- 



QUALIFICATIONS FOR BAPTISM. Ill 

tions; and surely the perfected Gospel dispensation 
will not exclude from their place in the church those 
infants whom the less perfect dispensations received 
into that place ! And if we understand Jesus to 
teach us, as we certainly must, that infants are, through 
the atonement, members of the heavenly kingdom, then 
certainly we cannot exclude them from the earthly king- 
dom. Hence, whatever way we understand the phrase 
we must understand our blessed Lord as placing infants 
in his Kingdom, which " is not of this world." And if 
we understand him as teaching that adults who constitute 
his Kingdom must resemble little children, as some Anti- 
pedobaptists would interpret the words " of such," cer- 
tainly their cause will gain nothing by it, for by this in- 
terpretation they make infants model Christ ia n s ! And if 
they are model Christians, we desire to know upon what 
ground they refuse to baptize them ! 

"A more correct translation," says Mr. Watson, on 
the place, u would be, For to such belongeth the Kingdom 
of God." 

We may now glance at the words, " Verily I say 
unto you, whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of 
God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." Now 
if we take the ground that infants do not receive, do not 
share in the Kingdom of God, how could our blessed 
Lord teach, as he here does, that we must all receive it 
as they do ? And unless we attribute this absurdity to 
our Lord, we must understand him as teaching that in- 
fants do receive the kingdom, do belong to the kingdom 
of God. But how do infants receive the Kingdom of 
God ? Like a pharisee, by fasting twice in the week and 
paying tithe of all that they possess ? Certainly not. 



112 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

How then do they receive it ? By works of righteous- 
ness which they have done ? By no means ; the help- 
less infant has neither tithe nor Works of any kind. 
How then do they receive it ? By merit of any kind ? 
No, not by merit of any kind. How then do they receive 
it ? Paul tells us, in the words which we have quoted 
several times already; they receive it as a " free gift; " 
they were "justified freely by his grace;" " the free 
gift came upon all unto justification of life." And just 
so every child of man must receive it, or not at all. Only 
in the case of adults who are accountable for actions of 
their own, and must now be treated as moral agents, 
faith is required as a condition. But still they receive 
the Kingdom of God as a " free gift." Still it is by 
grace they are saved through faith, and that not of them- 
selves ; " it is the gift of God." Here we are again 
taught that infants and believing adults receive the same 
kingdom, and both receive it as a '•' free gift," and for 
precisely the same reason each is entitled to the seal of 
the covenant, the seal of justification already received as 
a " free gift," through the atonement. How then dare 
any one rebuke those who bring their beloved infants to 
Jesus in holy baptism, seeing they are his by redemption, 
his by justification, as truly as are believing adults ? 
For those who did so before Jesus uttered the above 
words, there might be some excuse ; but for those who 
do so in defiance of these teachings and reproofs of 
Jesus it is difficult, very difficult, if at all possible, to 
find any excuse. Let them remember, however, that 
with such conduct u Jesus was much displeased," and let 
all who are rebuked by them for bringing their children 
to Jesus, treat their rebukes as Jesus did. 



QUALIFICATIONS FOB BAPTISM. 113 

In speaking of the qualification of infants for bap- 
tism, it will be seen that we did not find that qualifica- 
tion in the goodness of their moral nature. Our teach- 
ings here are not Pelagian, nor are they in the least 
tainted with Pelagianism. It is quite certain that infants 
come into the world with a nature morally depraved. 
The word of God is neither equivocal nor obscure on 
that point. Man is made to declare that fact with his 
own lips, in these words : " I was shapen in iniquity ; and 
in sin did my mother conceive me." " The wicked are 
estranged from the womb." God has not told us when 
or how he rectifies the moral nature of the infant. Hence 
it were folly for man to undertake to tell what God has 
not told. But he has told us that the condemnation 
brought upon it by the apostacy of the first parents is 
removed by an unconditional justification vouchsafed 
through the atonement. And this relative change which 
sets it right with regard to the law, is its qualification 
for baptism. Although it is not for us to say, nor does 
our argument require us to say, why God has not spoken 
as clearly with regard to the positive, as he has with 
regard to the relative change, we may observe, that the 
relative change could take place before the child had a 
positive existence, but the positive change could not. 
And it is proper to observe, too, that when adults are 
justified their moral nature is very far from being per- 
fectly pure ; they are not then cleansed from all the 
natural uncleanness, they are not sanctified wholly. 
Why this is so, God has not told us ; the fact, however, 
we must submit to in each case. It is enough for us to 
know that if God calls away that infant, or that newly 



114 CHEISTIAN BAPTISM. 

justified adult, he will make each mete for an inheri- 
tance among the saints in light, for il without holiness 
no one shall see the Lord." But why, or to what extent 
the further work is left conditional, we cannot tell. We 
have gone as far as facts and revelation guide us. 



CHAPTER XV. 

The Argument from Apostolic Practice— The Apostles Baptized the Believing 
Father and bis House — Remarks on tbe Greek words OUcot and Oikia — 
Taylor is quoted— Some further remarks with regard to the Origin and 
History of the Anabaptists. 

We will now glance at the Apostolic practice as 
recorded in the New Testament; from which we learn 
that the Apostles not only baptized the head of the house, 
when converted, but the family also. Hence, when the 
Jailor believed, we are told that " He was baptized, he 
and all his straightway." In like manner, we are told 
when Lydia believed, " She was baptized, and her house- 
hold." And St. Paul says : " I baptized also the house 
of Stephanus." 

But in all these and many other families similarly 
spoken of in the New Testament, the Antipedobaptists 
can find no children ; they will have it that all these 
families were as childless as are their own churches ! 
Just as soon as the sacred writers tell us of a man that 
was baptized, " he and all his," they are ready to say, 
" write this man childless !" But, as Mr. Watson says, 
" The great difficulty with Baptists is to make a house 
for Lydia without any children at all, young or old." 
And I do not know but they think they have succeeded 
admirably, when they tell us about certain journeymen 



116 CHRISTIAN BAPTISil. 

dyers, whom they conjecture were " employed in prepar- 
ing the purple she sold!" Of these journeymen, how- 
ever, no mortal ever heard anything, but what the Bap- 
tists tell us ; and, what is still worse, the Baptists them- 
selves never heard of such men ; it is all made up ! And 
it only tends, as Mr. Watson farther observes, " to mark 
more strikingly the helplessness of the attempt to torture 
this passage in favor of an opinion." 

As the objections of the Antipedobaptists to what has 
been said with regard to family baptisms by other 
writers, have been frequently and fully answered ; and 
as it is, and has been, our purpose not to follow the 
beaten track, we will simply say, just here, that it was 
Lydia and her oilcos that was baptized, not Lydia and 
her journeymen dyers. And when she was baptized, and 
her oikos, she besought the Apostles, saying, " If ye have 
judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my oikon." 
It was not her oikia, but her oikos, that was baptized ! 
Our opponents will please look into their Greek Testa- 
ments and see if this is not so. We beg to remind 
them, too, that no man speaking the Greek language, 
especially if he were a scholar, as Luke was, would 
tell us of the baptism of Lydia and her oikos, when he 
meant Lydia and her journeymen dyers ! Moreover, 
while the sacred historian gives us a minute account of 
Lydia's conversion, he does not say a word about the 
conversion of her journeymen dyers ! In short, all this 
talk about Lydia's journeymen dyers is as ridiculous 
as it is gratuitous. Nor does the sacred historian say a 
word about the conversion of Lydia's oikos ; he simply 
tells us that, being converted, " she was baptized and 
her oikos f for, there being no Antipedobaptists in those 



AP0ST0LI( PBACTICB. 1 17 

days, it was entirely unnecessary to say more ; seeing it 
was the well known and divinely established usage to 
extend the initiatory rite to the children of the initiated 
parent. But no such privilege belonged to the employees 
of the believer, simply because their employer was a be- 
liever ; and if Lydia's hired men had been converted, 
Luke would have told us of their conversion when he told 
us of their baptism, just as he told us of the conversion 
of Lydia when he told us of her baptism. But Luke 
has simply told us of the conversion of Lydia and of her 
baptism, and of the baptism of her oikos in consequence. 
And every Christian in those days, when told of Lydia's 
conversion and baptism, knew why her oikos were bap- 
tized, just as a Jew knew why the oikos of a Jew 
were circumcised. Every Jew knew that Ishmael was 
circumcised when his father Abraham was ; though the 
former was then " thirteen years old." And it was 
equally well known that Isaac was circumcised when 
"eight days old." And this practice continued among 
all the worshippers of the true God from that time till 
baptism took the place of circumcision. Here, then, we 
have this fact, viz : that circumcision was, by divine 
command, extended to the children of believing parents 
from the age of eight days to that of thirteen years, 
ivithout any reference to their own act! Now, when 
Lydia received the seal of the covenant, her children, her 
oikos, also received it, just as did the oikos of Abraham 
after their father received it. Here is the record, Gen. 
xvii. 26 : " In the self-same day was Abraham circum- 
cised, and Ishmael, his son;" and if Abraham had had 
other children, of course they, too, would have received 
the seal of the covenant the self-same day that Abraham, 

a* 



118 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

and Ishmael did. Now, in precisely the same way it was, 
and for the same reason, that the oikos of Lydia received 
the seal the self-same day that their mother did. Agree- 
ably to this exactly, are the teachings of Paul when he 
says the children are holy, that is sanctified, or conse- 
crated to God in baptism even where one of the parents 
is a believer ; so that we have both his teaching and 
practice for baptizing children, even where only one of 
the parents is a believer, and brings her children with 
her. These are facts that bid defiance to all that can be 
said by the advocates of mere novelty ! 

Although what is here said is, we believe, a sufficient 
explanation and defence of all the family baptisms 
referred to, we will, nevertheless, glance at the baptism 
of the Jailor's family, as it is recorded in Acts xvi., be- 
cause we think a more critical examination of the record 
will elicit information not obtained without a reference to 
the original. 

If you will look into your G-reek Testament, you will 
find that the reading is as follows : Verse 30 : " Sirs, 
what must I do to be saved ? And they said, Believe 
on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and 
thy oilcos. And they spake unto him the word of the 
Lord, and to all that were in his oihia. And he took 
them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes ; 
and was baptized, he and all his" not all the oikia, but 
" all his." " And when he had brought them into his 
oikon, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in 
God with all his oikon." 

Now, having before us this brief and clear exhibit of 
the sacred narrative, in which every one can see the words 
as they are varied in the original, but not in the common 



APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 119 

text, we call attention to the following particulars : 
First, the promise and its condition read thus : M Believe 
on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and 
thy oikos." Second, " they spake unto him the word of 
the Lord, and to all that were in his oikia" not oikos, 
you will observe. Third, he did believe, u and was bap- 
tized, he and all his." In Mark, it is not said that he and 
all his oikia were baptized, but " he and all his." The 
promise was to him and his ottos, children ; the word was 
preached to him and to all that were in his oikia, not only 
to him, but to all his household, all who were present. 
But we are not told that any believed except the Jailor, 
nor are we told that any were baptized save M he and all 
his." His children were baptized with him, precisely as 
Paul had promised ; but the others present, and not be- 
lieving, though the word was preached to them, had no 
such privilege ; they were not baptized, as were " he and 
all his." Now, he brought them into his oikon and " set 
meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all 
his oikon." Having obtained salvation, and he and his 
family being baptized, he prepared this eucharistic feast, 
and " rejoiced with all his house, believing in God." 
Egalliasato panoiki pepisteukos to Theo. Believing in 
God as he did, or having believed, he rejoiced with 
his house, or, as some express it, at the head of his house. 
Panoiki is differently rendered, but the whole of the 31th 
verse, taken together, is plain euough ; the whole house 
partook of his joy and he of theirs ; but the believing is 
peculiarly predicated of him. 

But I desire more especially to call attention to the 
words oikos and oikia. The promise was to the former, 
the preaching to the latter, and the baptism was ad 



120 CHEISTIAN baptism. 

ministered to him and all his. These are the facts as 
recorded. 

Mr. Taylor, in his admirable work on Baptism, en- 
titled "Facts and Evidences," says, p. 90 : "When the 
Philippian Jailor enquired, ' What must I do to be 
saved ?' the Apostle answered, ' Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house.' 
The oikia, servants of the Jailor, heard the Word ; but 
we do not read that one of the oikia was baptized, saved, 
but this we do read of the Jailor, and of all his house ; 
which is exactly what the Apostle foretold." It will be 
seen that Mr. Taylor marks the same distinction between 
the words oi/cos and oikia that we have pointed out above. 
Again, on p. 60, speaking of the baptism of Stephanus, 
he says : " Scripture says his family was baptized ; I, 
therefore, believe that fact — Scripture says nothing of 
the baptism of his household, I, therefore, do not believe 
it. But I will believe it whenever a passage of Scripture 
shall he produced in ivhich household, oikia, is connected 
with baptism." Here this ripe scholar, after the most 
careful investigation, tells us that he has failed to find a 
single instance on record where a man and his oikia, 
household, are said to have been baptized ; but he does 
find it recorded that Lydia and her oikos were baptized, 
and that the Jailor and his oikos Were baptized ; but 
although we are told that the Apostle preached the Word 
to the Jailor's oikia we are not told that his oikia were 
baptized. The promise was to him and his children, oikos, 
and when he believed he and his were baptized according 
to promise ! 

Following the above remarks, Mr. Taylor proceeds 
thus : " The mischance that our translators should have 



APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 191 

used the terras house and household interchangeably, 
though Scripture preserves the distinction, is glaring 
respecting the family of Onesiphorus, 2 Timothy i. 16, 
and iv\ 19. The Greek word in one text is rendered 
'house,' and in the other * household,' notwithstanding 
the same persons are intended. Our translators also 
have used one word, household, to express both the 
family and household of Stephanus, though Scripture 
uses two words in order to make the distinction, and cer- 
tainly does not mean the same persons. This has pro- 
duced confusion, and various weak and inconsistent 
arguments." To this fact we have called attention in 
the narrative of the Jailor's conversion and baptism, 
where we have shown that the sacred historian has used 
the words oikos and oikia, both of which are rendered 
house, though the historian predicates of the one what he 
does not of the other. 

So convinced is Mr. Taylor of the truthfulness and 
the importance of this distinction, and of the fixedness 
of the meaning of the word oikos, both in the Old and 
New Testaments, that he wholly rests his argument in 
favor of Infant Baptism upon this single point. Hence, 
on page 14, he says : M The argument is brought to this 
point : the Old Testament writers use the term House 
in the sense of family, with a special reference to 
infants ; the New Testament writers use the terra House 
exactly in the same sense as the Old Testament writers ; 
therefore, when the New Testament writers say that they 
baptized houses, they mean to say that they baptized 
infants." After the most laborious investigation, and 
after quoting numerous texts of scripture, both from the 
Old and New Testaments, and after producing a great 



122 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

variety of arguments, such as none but a scholar and 
a thinker could produce, and all to establish the above 
proposition, he reaches such conclusions as the follow- 
ing, which I find upon page 89 : " Being myself con- 
vinced that the Apostles practised infant baptism, and 
that the evangelist meant to tell us so, I affirm that the 
natural import of the term oikos, family, includes 
children of all ages. In proof, I offer fifty examples ; 
if fifty are not sufficient, I offer a hundred ; if a hun- 
dred are not sufficient, two hundred ; if two hundred are 
not sufficient, four hundred. I affirm that oikos very 
often expresses the presence of infants ; of this I offer 
fifty examples, and if we admit classical instances, fifty 
more. Euripides alone affords half the number, though 
he frequently uses domos instead of oikos. More than 
three hundred instances have been examined which have 
proved perfectly satisfactory." He now goes on to show 
that when the sacred writers tell us of the baptism of a 
man and his oikos, they thereby convey to us the idea of 
infant baptism more undeniably than they could, perhaps, 
in any other way. In proof of this he quotes the follow- 
ing facts, thus : " What terms could the evangelists have 
used to satisfy us of the apostolic practice of infant bap- 
tism ? Had they said, ' We baptize infants ; ' Origen says 
this, and Baptists immediately exclaim, l . Metaphorical 
infants ! metaphorical infants !' Had they said, ' We bap- 
tize children,' as the apostles Paul and John, and Clement 
of Alexandria say, they answer, * Metaphorical children !" 
Hence he concludes that when the sacred writers use the 
word oikos as they have done, they thereby put the fact 
of infant baptism more effectually beyond the possibility 
of evasion than they would have done if they had only 



APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 

1 

used the word infants ; for the word family, or oikos, 
must include infants and little ones; and we may more 
plausibly talk about metaphorical infants, or children, 
than we could about metaphorical families / So true it 
is that the Bible is right not only as to the ideas, which 
it conveys to us, but also as to the words which it em- 
ploys for that purpose. The truth is, no words could be 
used that would prevent certain people from reject- 
ing the right and embracing the wrong. Some people 
will be wrong anyhow ! 

After quoting many texts in the Old Testament, the 
same author quotes the following: Ruth iv. 11, 13 : 
" The Lord make the woman that is come into thine 
house like Rachel and like Lea, which two did build the 
house of Israel : and do thou worthily in Ephratah : and 
be famous in Bethlehem : and let thine house be like the 
house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the 
seed which the Lord shall give thee of this young 
woman." "It is not possible," continues our author, 
" by any form of words whatever, to express infants 
more decidedly than by these applications of the term 
house : and if there were no other text in the Old Testa- 
ment, this last alone is sufficient to establish the propo- 
sition that the term house in the Old Testament language 
must mean an infant. The luilding up of the house of 
Israel is infant child-bearing. Thy house — the 'seed 
which the Lord shall give thee of this young woman ' 
must mean an infant. This is the national and acknowl- 
edged language used by ' all the people that were in the 
gate,' not by the vulgar only, but by those well instruct- 
ed ; by the elders." Thus it is that this writer establishes 
the fact, viz : that this word oikos, house, conveys the 



124 CHRISTIAN BAPTISE. 

idea of infants, or children, both in the Old and New 
Testaments. The Spirit that inspired and guided the 
writers of the Old Testament to use this word for the 
purpose of conveying this idea, also inspired and guided 
the New Testament writers to use it for the same pur- 
pose. Now, seeing this word had this fixed and univer- 
sally understood meaning among that people for some two 
thousand years, was it possible for them to misunderstand 
one of their own writers when he told them that he bap- 
tized the Jailor and his oikos, Lydia and her oikos, 
Stephanus and his oikos ? I say, was it possible for 
them to understand him otherwise than that he baptized 
the man and his children, or the woman and her children, 
as the case might be ? And, waiving the consideration 
of inspiration, we ask, was it possible for a Jewish writer 
to tell this people that he baptized a man and his house, 
if he did not mean a man and his children, especially 
infants? And the supposition becomes the more impos- 
sible, when it is remembered not only that his oikos meant 
his children, but that it was the divinely appointed usage 
of that people, and had been so for some two thousand 
years, to apply the seal to the children when it was 
applied to the parent. The fact is, it seems impossible 
for any one that is not shamefully ignorant of the Bible 
and history, to doubt the meaning of the historic records 
of the New Testament with regard to the baptism of cer- 
tain individuals and their families. 

After filling nearly one hundred pages with ' ; facts 
and evidences " in favor of infant baptism, this writer 
closes his admirable work with the following remarks, 
which we think may be useful just here : 

"I close these researches upon the Subject of 
Christian Baptism with two inferences. 



APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 125 

"1. The Christian Church in the North, in the 
South, in the East, and in the West, never did REFUSE 
baptism to infants. Are the Baptists, then, wiser than 
all the world ? than all the faithful men of apostolic 
ages, and than all their contemporaries? Is it likely 
that they alone, of all the millions of Christians of every 
period and nation, in spite of these ■ facts and eviden- 
ces,' should be the only persons who have elicited Scrip- 
tural truth ? 

" 2. In all Christian Churches, baptism is a consecra- 
tion to the Trinity ! Not one uses any form of words — 
the Baptists themselves do not use any form of words, 
in the administration of baptism, allusive to the burial 
of the person baptized, as they say Christ was buried. 
Had our Lord intended such allusion, He would have 

said so I adhere to the initiatory words of Christ 

as the best and greatest authority on the subject ; for it 
is very extraordinary that in a religion having but two 
rites, they should loth point at the same thing. The 
death of the Saviour is clearly the primary and direct 
purport of the Lord's Supper. Is it likely or credible 
that the primary and direct purport of baptism should 
also be the death of the Saviour ? But if in the initia- 
tory rite there be a commemoration of the interposing 
Deity, and in the Lord's Supper a commemoration of the 
interposing humanity — if for this reason consecration to 
the Deity is sufficient by one act, and ought not to be re- 
peated, while devotedness to Jesus, as Lord of all, is 
frequently renewed, and to be repeated continually, then 
there is between the two rites that distinction which was 
evidently intended, and which it well becomes all pro- 
fessors of our common faith to retain to the latest gen- 
eration." 



126 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

It is a remarkable, and a very telling fact, that those 
scholars who have been most thorough in their investi- 
gations on the subject of baptism have, as the result of 
their investigations, been most confident in their conclu- 
sions. Hence the editor of Calmet's Dictionary, like 
Baxter and many others, has utterly failed to find any- 
thing clearly in favor of Anabaptist notions, while his 
vast accumulation of facts and evidences are directly 
and irreconcilably opposed to them. As an antiquarian 
he searches ancient churches, catacombs, and other places, 
and there finds monuments of the artistic skill, and of 
the piety, sentiments, and practice of the ancient Chris- 
tians ; monuments which have stood there from primitive 
times, bearing their unchangeable and unmistakable tes- 
timony both as to the mode and subjects of baptism during 
the early and following ages of the Christian Church, 
and in every instance they testify that Anabaptist no- 
tions are novelties/ These ancient works of art repre- 
sent baptism as being administered by pouring ; and the 
ancient inscriptions testify to the baptism of children, 
after this manner : " To Aristus who lived eight months : 
newly baptized, he went off the first of the nones of 
June, A. D. 389 : Timasius and Promotorus being Con- 
suls.'' The original is in Latin, and this is the transla- 
tion which our author gives us. This is only one out of the 
many similar inscriptions which he furnishes. As a 
philologist he searches with equal diligence, and dis- 
covers that the words which refer to the subject in hand 
were fixed and unmistakable in their meaning, and that 
they bear an equally decisive and unequivocal testimony 
against the same novelties ; and that their testimony in 
favor of the views here contended for is not less decisive 



APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 1 J 7 

and unequivocal. And, finally, as a student of history, 
be discovers that " the Christian Churches in the North* 
in the South, in the East, and in the West, never did re- 
fuse baptism to infants ! " And finding that neither he 
nor any other man, ancient or modern, could discover what 
Antipedobaptists claim to have discovered, he asks : " Is 
it likely that they alone, of all the millions of Christians 
of every period and nation, in spite of these facts and 
evidences, should be the only persons who have elicited 
Scripture truth ! " But startling as is this question, it 
will become still more startling if put in this form, which 
is really the proper form : " Is it likely that the fanatics 
of Germany, such as Thomas Munzer, Conrad Grebel, 
John Matthias, and John Boccold, should discover what 
all the learned, the wise, and the good, both ancient and 
modern, have failed to discover ? " This is really the 
question ; for to the parties here mentioned we trace the 
Antipedobaptist notions, and beyond these parties we 
find them not. If the advocates of these notions can 
find them prior to these fanatics, let them tell us when, 
and where ! 

But lest any should impose upon their neighbors by 
bold assertion instead of argument, which is not at all 
an unfrequent occurrence, we will here furnish a few of 
the facts of history. 

To escape the storm which was now driving down 
with terrible fury from the "seven mountains upon 
which the woman sitteth," Luther was carried to the 
ancient Castle of Wartburg, where he remained for some 
twelve months. During his stay there the Reformation 
progressed, but there arose a new set of reformers claim- 
ing to be prophets, and like certain reformers in olden 



128 CHRISTIAN BAPTIS1I. 

times boasting great things. The good Elector of Sax- 
ony being both alarmed and puzzled, wrote Luther. 
The great Reformer soon comprehended the matter, and 
replied thus: "Your Electoral grace has been accus- 
tomed for many years to seek for relics in every country. 
God has granted your desires, and has sent you, without 
expense or trouble, a complete cross, with nails, lances, 
and scourges .... grace and prosperity to the new 
relic ! . . . . Let your Highness only without fear ex- 
tend your arms, and allow the nails to pierce the flesh ! 

I have always expected that Satan would send 

us this plague." This plague first appeared in the little 
town of Zwickau. The following account of it is from. 
D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation, 1846. W. 
R. McPhun, Glasgow. Page 579 : 

" There dwelt in this town some men who, excited 
by the manifestation of the great events which then agi- 
tated the public mind in Christendom, aspired to the 
possession of direct revelations from the Divine Being, 
instead of seeking with simplicity the sanetincation of 
the heart, and who pretended that they were called to 
complete the Reformation of which Luther had weakly 
sketched the design. ' For what good purpose is it, 1 said 
they, < to attach one's self so exclusively to the Bible ? 
The Bible ! Always the Bible ! Can the Bible speak 
to us ? Is it not insufficient for our instruction ? If 
God had wished to instruct us by means of a book, 
would he not have sent us a Bible from heaven ? It is 
by the Spirit alone that we can be enlightened. God 
Himself thus speaks to us. God Himself reveals to us 
what we ought to do and what we ought to say.' A sim- 
ple cloth manufacturer named Nicolas Stork, declared 



APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 120 

that the Angel Gabriel had appeared to him during the 
night, aiid that, after having communicated many things 
which he could not yet reveal, the Angel had said : ' Thou 
thyself shalt sit upon my throne.' One of the former 
students at Wittemberg, called Mark Stubner, united 
himself to Stork, and immediately abandoned his studies; 
because, as he said, he received directly from God the 
gift of interpreting the Holy Scriptures. Mark Thomas, 
another cloth manufacturer, also joined the party ; while 
a new adept, Thomas Munzer, a man of a fantastic dis- 
position, imparted a regular organization to the body of 
this new sect. Stork, wishing to follow the example of 
Christ, chose from among his adherents twelve apostles 
and seventy-two disciples." After telling us somewhat of 
their prophesyings and of their doings, our historian thus 
proceeds : " Nicolas Haussman, to whom Luther bore 
this elegant testimony — ' That which we teach he does ' 
— was then the pastor of Zwickau. This worthy man 
did not allow himself to be carried away by the assump- 
tions of these false prophets. He opposed the innova- 
tions which Stork and his adherents were anxious to in- 
troduce, and the two deacons of the church acted in 

unison with their pastor They formed regular 

organizations, wherein destructive doctrines were ac- 
knowledged, and the minds of the people became highly 
excited." The civil authorities interfering, these fa- 
natics met with an opposition which checked their pro- 
gress, and Nicolas Stork, Mark Thomas, and Mark 
Stubner, started for Wittemberg. 

" They arrived in this celebrated town," continues 
our historian, "on the 27th of December, 1521. Stork 
marched first, imitating the step and bearing of a com- 



130 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

mon soldier, while Thomas and Stubner followed behind 
him. The troubles which reigned in Wittemberg favored 
the designs of these strangers. The youths of the acad- 
emy, and the citizens, at the time in a state of much agi- 
tation, composed, as it were, a soil prepared for the 
operations of the new prophets. Hence, believing them- 
selves sure of their support, they immediately waited 
upon the professors of the- university, in order to obtain 
their concurrence. ' We are,' said the strangers, ' sent 
from God to give instruction to the people. We hold 
familiar conversation with the Lord, and we are ac- 
quainted with the events that are to come to pass : in a 
word, we are apostles and prophets, and we appeal, in 
this matter, to Doctor Luther. This singular language 
amazed the doctors of the university. ' Who has or- 
dained you to preach ? ' enquired Melancthon of Stubner, 
his former pupil, whom he received into his house : ' Our 
Lord God.' 'Have you written any books?' 'Our 
Lord God has forbidden me to do so.' . Melancthon was 

thunderstruck ; equally amazed and alarmed 

Stork, whose character was restless, very soon quitted 
the town of Wittemberg, but Stubner remained there. 
Animated with an ardent desire of proselytism, he visit- 
ed every district of the town, speaking, sometimes to one 
person, sometimes to another (their children but too 
closely adhere to the practice of their ancestors), and 
several of his hearers acknowledged him as a prophet 
sent from God. He addressed himself particularly to a 
Swabian named Cellarius, a friend of Melancthon, who 
kept a school wherein he gave instructions in letters to a 
great number of young people, and who very soon fully 
recognized the mission of the new prophets. 



APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 131 

" Melancthon became more and more uncertain and 
disquieted in bis mind. It was not so mucb the visions 
of the prophets from Zwickau which disturbed his imag- 
ination, as the new doctrine they professed upon the sa- 
crament of baptism." Mark, it was A niw doctrine ! 
What it was we shall see pretty soon. 

<; Circumstances became more and more serious at 
Wittemberg. Carlstadt rejected several of the doctrines 
professed by the new prophets, and in particular their 
Anabaptism" But things grew worse and worse, and 
the friends of the Reformation were now more afraid of 
these fanatical Anabaptists than they were of Rome itself; 
for the enemies of the truth were shrewd enough to 
charge their fanatical doings and their wild insubordina- 
tion to Luther and his followers, in a word, to the Refor- 
mation. 

Meantime many communications reached Luther in 
the Castle of Wartburg, and he was evidently well con- 
vinced both as to the nature and danger of the work 
that was going on. " I throw myself," he exclaimed, 
11 in the dust while creeping towards the grace of the Eter- 
nal, and I beseech him to allow his name to be still con- 
nected with this work, and that if something impure has 
mingled in its operations, he will remember that I am a 
weak and sinful man." Finally, "upon the third of 
March, he rose with the resolution to quit the Castle of 
"Wartburg forever. He bade adieu to those ancient tow- 
ers and dark forests ; and issued forth beyond those walls 
behind which neither the excommunications of Leo X. 
nor the sword of Carles V. were able to restrain him." 

As Luther went to Worms so he returned to Wittem- 
berg, determined to enter though there were in it as many 



132 CHRISTIAN BAPTI5M:. 

devils as there were tiles upon the housetops ! He enter- 
ed! and soon the announcement, '"'Luther is come!" 
"Luther is come ! v flew through the place like flashes of 
lightning, and were felt like the electric shock. All at 
once, too, all the Anabaptist prophets were missing, 
Cellarius only excepted. Eight sermons from Luther 
produced wonderful effects. " At the command of 
Luther," says D'Aubigne, p. 596, " objections vanished, 
tumult was appeased, sedition ceased to vociferate her 
clamor, and the citizens of TVitteniberg resumed the 
tranquil occupations of life.". . . , "Nevertheless. Stubner, 
having been informed that the sheep of his flock had 
dispersed, returned speedily to his old haunts. Those 
who had remained constant to ' the celestial prediction ,' 
surrounded their master, recounted to him the substance 
of Luther's discourses, and impatiently inquired of him 
what course they ought in consequence to pursue." 

Stubner and Cellarius were, or pretended to be, confi- 
dent that they could defend their claims before Luther, 
and demanded an interview. Their request was granted, 
and the result was as might be expected. The following 
is a brief sketch of the conference, as recorded by D'Au- 
bigne on p. 597. " Stubner was allowed to speak first. 
He explained how he wished to renew the Church and to 
change the world, Luther listened to this harangue with 
great calmness. At last, with great gravity, he replied. 
' Nothing of what you have said is founded upon the 
Holy Scriptures, all your affirmations are made up of 
fables.' "When these words were uttered, Cellarius was 
unable longer to restrain his fury. He commenced to 
speak; he made violent gestures: stamped with his feet, 
and struck with his hand the table that stood before him. 



apo -lAcncE. 133 

He worked himself into a passion, and exclaimed it was 
shameful to dare in this manner to speak to a man of 
God. Then Luther quietly added, * St. Paul declares 
that the proofs of his apostleship hare appeared through 
the working of wonders, prove yours by the performance 
of miracles. * We will do so,' responded the prophets. 
1 The God I adore, 7 said Luther, ■ shall well know how to 
hold your gods in eheck.' Stubner, who had preserved a 
larger portion of self-possession, fixing at this moment 
his eyes upon the Reformer, said, with the air of one in- 
spired. • Martin Luther, I am about to declare to you 
the thoughts which are now passing in your soul 
you begin to believe that my doctrine is true. 1 Luther, 
having for a few moments remained silent, replied, ' God 

reprove thee, Satan.* At these words all the prophets 

became furious. ■ The Spirit, th they bellowed 

out Luther, adopting, with a cold tone of disdain, the 
:: g familiar language peculiar to himgplf, said, ' I 
have hit your Spirit on the snout. : The clamor now in- 
creased two-fold, and Cellarius especially distinguished 
himself by his ravings. He became frantic, he shook 
and foamed at the mouth. No one could at this time be 
heard in the chamber of the conference. At last the 
three prophets abandoned the place, and on the same day 
quitted the city of Wittemberg.'' Thus it was that the 
novelties of the fanatical Anabaptists were met by the 
great Reformer, and thus it was that the new prophets 
were routed, at least for the present. But though they 
have fled from Wittemberg they have not abandoned 
their errors or ceased to propagate them. We must, there- 
fore, follow them a little further. 



134 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

On p. 741, our historian gives us the following ac- 
count of their further proceedings : 

"The fanaticism of the Anabaptists, extinguished in 
Germany at the time of Luther's return to TVittemberg, 
reappeared with increased strength in Switzerland, and it 
threatened to overthrow the edifice which Zwingle, Hal- 
ler, and Ecolampade had reared upon the foundation of 
the word of God. Thomas Munzer, when forced to leave 
Saxony in the year 1521, had retreated to the very fron- 
tiers of Switzerland. Conrad Grebel, whose restless and 
ardent disposition we have already had occasion to de- 
scribe, was bound in ties of amity with Munzer as well 
as Felix Mantz, the son of a canon, and some other citi- 
zens of the town of Zurich ; while Grebel had likewise 
endeavored to gain the support of Zwingle. In vain had 
this Swiss reformer advanced in that direction further 
than Luther ; for he now beheld a party eager to outstrip 
the progress he had made. ' Let us form,' said Grebel 
to Zwingle, ' a company of true believers ; because it is 
to them alone the promise belongs ; and let us establish a 
Church wherein sin shall not be allowed to enter.' ' It 
is impossible,' replied Zwingle, ' to form a heaven upon 
earth ; and Christ has taught us that we must allow the 
tares to grow along with the wheat.' Grebel, being frus- 
trated in his attempts with the reformer, longed to make 
an appeal to the people. ' The whole community of Zu- 
rich,' said he, ' must, with sovereign power, decide upon 
the affairs of faith.' But Zwingle feared the influence 
these radical enthusiasts might exercise upon the minds 
of a numerous assembly." 

Three things should be noticed, just here, in the doings 
of these fanatics. First, while by proselyting and in 



APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 135 

other ways they are endeavoring to tear the church to 
pieces, they nevertheless cry out loudly for union ! Second, 
they at the same time declare that the church is all wrong 
they only are right, and are going to have a church 
" wherein sin shall not be allowed to enter." Third, they 
flatter the people, cry out for their rights, and declare 
that '•' the whole community must with sovereign power 
decide upon the affairs of faith." We too have seen this 
game played : union has been loudly called for, while at 
the same time the work of proselyting has been carried 
on, and our Church represented as no church, and our 
baptism as no baptism ; and, as of old, the people have 
been appealed to and flattered ! But this game did not 
succeed with Luther and Zwingle; the German and Swiss 
reformers were not to be taken in this way ; for though 
the " Swiss reformer advanced in that direction further 
than Luther," he soon discovered his mistake, and it was 
well he did, for the character and designs of the Anabap- 
tist prophets soon became painfully apparent, as the fol- 
lowing extracts from the same history will show. 

" Repulsed by Zwingle, Grebel turned his attention 
elsewhere. Rubli, the ancient pastor of Basil, Brodtlein 
the pastor of Zollekon, and likewise Herzer, received his 
advances with eagerness. They resolved to form an in- 
dependent community in the centre of the grand commu- 
nity, a church in the middle of the church. A new bap- 
tism was fixed upon as the means of gathering together 
their congregation, composed exclusively of true believ- 
ers. ' The baptism of infants,' said they, ' is a horrible 
abomination, a manifest impiety, invented by the evil 
spirit and Nicholas II. the pope of Rome.' The council 
of Zurich, alarmed at the prospect of these proceedings, 



136 CHRISTIAN BAPTISJI. 

issued an order for the observance of a public discussion ; 
and the Anabaptists, still refusing to forsake their errors, 
some people of Zurich belonging to their sect were cast 
into prison, while a few strangers were banished from 
the district. But this persecution only served to aug- 
ment the fervor of these enthusiasts." " Some of their 

number, begirt with cords or willow wands, walked through 
the streets, exclaiming, ' in a few days Zurich shall be 
destroyed. Wo to you, Zurich ! wo, wo ! ' Many of 
them gave vent to expressions of blasphemy. ' Baptism,' 
said they, ' is the bathing of a dog, there is no more use 
in baptizing an infant than in baptizing a eat.' Simple 
people were thrown into a state of commotion and dread. 
Fourteen men, and among their number Felix Mantz, in 
company with seven women, were taken into custody, in 
spite of the intercession of Zwingle, and condemned to 
live upon bread and water in the tower of the heretics. 
At the end of fifteen days' confinement, they succeeded 
in raising some planks during the night, and, with the 
assistance of each other, they effected their escape. 'An 
angel,' they said, ' had opened the prison and procured 
their deliverance.' A monk who had fled from his con- 
vent, George Jacobade Coire,surnamed Blaurock, because 
he always wore, as it would appear, a blue habit, joined 
the newly-formed sect, and was, on account of his natu- 
ral eloquence, denominated the second St. Paul. This 
bold Monk went about from place to place, obliging peo- 
ple to receive the token of his baptism by means of his 
overheated appeals. On a certain Sunday, in Zollekon, 
at the moment when the deacon was delivering his sermon, 
the impetuous Anabaptist interrupted the speaker by ex- 
claiming in a voice of thunder, 'It is written my house is a 



APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 137 

house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves,' 
then, raising a stick he carried in his hand, he struck 
with it on the ground four violent blows, exclaiming, < I 
am the door, he who will enter through me shall find 
food. I am the good shepherd. My body I give up to 
prison ; my life I give up to the sword, to the funeral 
pile, or to the wheel. I am the commencement of bap. 
tism and of the bread of the Lord.' " 

" But Zwingle offering a stern opposition to the tor- 
rent of Anabaptism in Zurich, St. Gaul was very soon 
overrun with the same plague. Grebel arrived in the 
latter city, where he was received with acclamations by 
his brethren ; and on Palm Sunday, proceeding in com- 
pany with an immense number of his adherents to the 
banks of the Sitter, he administered baptism to the whole 
multitude. 

" After this, the spirit of fanaticism displayed itsel 
in freaks of melancholy extravagance. Pretending that 
our Lord exhorts us to become like little children, these 
unhappy beings began to jump about in the streets, and 
to clap their hands together, to dance round and round 
in numerous circles, to sit down upon the ground, and to 
roll one another about in the sand. Some of them threw 
the New Testament into the fire, saying : ' The letter 
kills, but the Spirit gives life ; ' while many, falling into 
convulsions, pretended they had received revelations of 
the Spirit." 

But the most melancholy of all that D'Aubigne re- 
cords concerning the Anabaptists, is that which he re- 
cords just here, p. 744 : " In a lonely house situated in 
the vicinity of St. Gaul, upon the Mullegg, there lived 
an old husbandman, eighty years of age, named John 



138 CHKISTIAN BAPTISE. 

Shucker, who had five sons to bear him company. The 
whole of this family, as well as their servants, received 
the ordinance of the new baptism, and two of the sons, 
Thomas and Leonard, particularly distinguished them- 
selves by their extreme fanaticism. On the 6th Feb- 
ruary, 1526, the day being Shrove Tuesday, they invited 
a large number of Anabaptists to meet in their house, 
and the father killed a calf to provide for the feast. The 
viands and the wine sufficed to heat the imaginations of 
this numerous company, and they passed the whole night 
in conversation, fantastic gesticulations, convulsions, vis- 
ions, and revelations. 

"In the morning, Thomas, still excited by the ex- 
cesses of the past night, and having even, as it would 
appear, lost the power of his reason, took up the bladder 
of the calf and put into it the gall of the beast, desiring 
thus to imitate the symbolical actions of the prophets ; 
and, going up to his brother Leonard, he said to him in 
a sombre tone, ' Equally bitter is the death which you 
must die.' Then added, ' Brother Leonard, kneel down 
upon your knees.' Leonard did as he was commanded. 
In a little while he said, ' Brother Leonard, arise ;" ' and 
Leonard again stood upon his feet. The father, the 
brothers, and the rest of the Anabaptists, stared in 
amazement, wondering what might be the will of God. 
Very soon Thomas once more said, ' Leonard, kneel down 
again,' and the humble posture was resNmed. The spec- 
tators, alarmed at the gloomy expression of the unhappy 
actor, said, ' Reflect upon what you are about to do, and 
take care that no evil happens.' ' Do not fear,' replied 
Thomas, 'the will of the Father alone shall be fulfilled.' 
.... At the same moment he hastily seized a sword 






APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 139 

aud aiming a blow with all bis strength at the body of 
his kneeling brother, like a criminal before the execution- 
er, he cut oil" his head, and exclaimed, ' Now the will of the 
Father is accomplished.' .... On the lGth of Febru- 
ary, the wretched fratricide was beheaded by the hands 
of the hangman, and fanaticism had been seen to expend 
its last effort. The eyes of all were opened ; and, as an 
ancient historian has said, ' the same blow served to de- 
capitate alike the body of Thomas Shucker and that of 
Anabaptism in St. Gaul.' The sect, however, still lived 
in Zurich; and on the Gth of November of the preced- 
ing year, a public dispute had there taken place, in order 
to give satisfaction to the Anabaptists, who continued to 
cry out, ' The innocent are condemned without being 
heard.' The three following theses were proposed by 
Zwingle and his friends as the subject of conference, and 
were victoriously maintained by them in the hall of the 
Council." Here follow the theses : 

" Children born of faithful parents are the children 
of God, like those who were born under the Old Testa- 
ment ; and, consequently, they can receive baptism." 

" Baptism is, under the New Testament, that which 
circumcision w r as under the Old, consequently baptism 
must so now be administered to children in the same 
way as circumcision was formerly administered, "j 

" The usage of baptizing anew cannot be proved, 
either by example, or by passages, or by arguments 
drawn from the Scriptures; and those who submit to a 
new baptism crucify Jesus Christ." % 

Here is a faithful account of the origin of the people 
called Anabaptists, and of some of their opinions and 
doings. John Matthias, the baker, and John Boccold, 



140 CHRISTIAN BAPTISil. 

the tailor, Lave already been referred to as leaders of the 
Anabaptists ; they too, claimed to be prophets, and 
Boccold finally proclaimed himself king by Divine ap- 
pointment, and his fanatical followers obeyed him as 
such. They took possession of Munster, an imperial 
city of Westphalia. I think it was here that Matthias 
was killed. 

It will be seen from the historic records here given, 
that these Anabaptists did not even claim to have ob- 
tained their teachings from the Bible ; indeed they com- 
menced by rejecting the Bible, as may be seen by refer- 
ence to the above quotations ; some of them actually 
threw their Bible into the fire. They claimed to have 
received their teachings by direct revelation; they said 
" We hold familiar conversation with the Lord." Some 
said they had a communication from the Angel Gabriel. 
Another, a little more honest, said, " I am the commence- 
ment of baptism," meaning, of course, baptism as he 
taught and practised. It will be seen, too, that Melanc- 
thon called their Antipedobaptist doctrine a " new doc- 
trine." Nor does it appear that the prophets themselves 
denied this. As for Luther, when he heard the prophets 
state their own views, he said, and said truly, " All your 
affirmations are made up of fables !" It is also worthy 
of remark, that in the " Theses" quoted above, the re- 
formers take the ground that "Baptism is under the 
New Testament that which circumcision was under the 
Old." And with regard to re-hajdizinj, they not only 
affirm that it has absolutely no countenance from the 
word of God, but they look upon the act as involving 
very serious consequences ; and they not only censured 
the re-hajitizers, but they went as far as to say that 



APOSTOLIC PRACTICE, 111 

" Those who submit to a new baptism crucify Jesus 
Christ !" 

Such were the men who introduced the Antipcdo- 
baptist novelty ; such the time and mode of its introduc- 
tion : and such the opposition that it met with from the 
great reformers of the sixteenth century. " But it does not 
appear, " says Bishop Toinlin, " that there was any 
congregation of Anabaptists in England till the year 
1640." And with regard to their commencement in this 
country, we are informed that it was on this wise. In 
Khode Island, Ezekiel Holliman baptized Roger Wil- 
liams, then lloger turned round and baptized Ezekiel 
and ten others. Such was their beginning in this west- 
ern world. Such is the Church that claims to be the 
only Church, and such the baptism that is claimed to be 
the only baptism. 

Now, we have no sympathy with what is called " the 
doctrine of succession," no sympathy with the cry, u We 
have Abraham to our father ;" if people are wrong now, 
we censure them, whoever their father may have been ; 
and if they are right now, we ask no more. But when 
the Anabaptists vainly, and loudly, talk about their an- 
tiquity and ancestry, and claim to be the Church, the 
only Church, and represent all others as having gone out 
of the way, it is highly proper, we think, to say to them, 
" Look to the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole 
of the pit whence ye are digged." So far as the Ana- 
baptists are right now we are with them, and bid them 
God speed ; but they must not expect us to indorse the 
inventions of Munzer, Grebel, Storck, Stubner, Boccold, 
and other fanatics, as being the teachings of Jesus and his 
Apostles. So far as they hold the truth in common with 



142 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

evangelical Christians, we are with them, and give them 
due credit, but when they reject what we know to be of 
Divine appointment, and force upon us what we know to 
be an unscriptural novelty, we may not submit, nor hold 
our peace either ! And when they are so bigoted and 
exclusive that they will not sit down with God's people 
at God's table, or allow any of God's people to sit down 
with them at their table, let them not cry out for union 
Only a few days since, I was told the following : x\ 
lady who was a member of the M. E. Church, feeling 
that she was dying, sent for her pastor to administer to 
her the sacrament of the supper, feeling, like her Master, 
that she should not again drink of this fruit of the vine 
until that day when she should drink it new in her father's 
kingdom. The minister hastens to the dying room, the 
table is spread, and a little group of friends gather 
around to partake, with the dying woman, of the sacred 
emblems of Christ's dying love. The husband of the 
dying woman is in the next room ; he is invited to come 
and receive the holy sacrament with his wife before she 
dies ; but no, he will not : Why ? Simply because he 
belongs to the Baptist Church, and his wife belongs to 
the M. E. Church ! As we said before, so we say again, 
when such people cry out for union, which they do, un- 
der given circumstances, we must doubt their sincerity, 
we cannot do otherwise ! And we verily believe that, 
till they are ashamed of, and abandon this unchristian 
practice, they should be left to themselves ! And let it 
be remembered, that their claims to superiority are 
based upon the novelties that they received from the 
German fanatics of the sixteenth century ! Once more, 
let them take the Gospel, which they hold, and preach it 



APOSTOLIC PRACTICE. 1 13 

to sinners, and save all they can, and \vc will, so far bid 
tlicm God speed. But let them not come into our 
churches and dwellings to pervert and proselyte those 
whom God has placed under our care, and who, we kno>i<, 
have received Scripture baptism ! Let them not do this 
thing ! 

And now, ye people of Israel, Christian people of 
every name, we say to you in conclusion, Consecrate 
your children to God in holy Baptism ; remember " the 
promise is to you and to your children ;" and Jesus says 
to you, " Suffer little children to come unto me, and for- 
bid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God." 
Bring, then, your children to Jesus, who is as ready now, 
and as able, to bless them, as He was when He first ut- 
tered those blessed words. Bring them, I say, to this 
blessed Saviour, who in the days of His flesh " took the 
little children up into His arms, put His hands upon 
them and blessed them." He claims them as the pur- 
chase of His blood, and " the free gift " has already " come 
upon" them "unto justification of life." Bring them, 
I say once more, to Him who died for them, and who 
commands you to do so ; and as you come, say : 

'• Wo bring them, Lord, in thankful hands, 

And yield them up to Thee, 
Joyful that we ourselves are Thine, 

Thine let our offspring be/ 1 

And when you laptize "with water," see that you 
baptize as He does, who baptizes " with the Holy Ghost ; " 
and you hiow he baptizes by pouring, shedding, falling ; 
not by plunging ! 



7" 



[ M U f i 



OA A A 






ir^lfefe 



^i<§ww 



MSA 



^^■»*^ 



'IPs' 






>NrlW2*m 



irlAL 












40??V^^ 



«'J' flWfl 






m 'ft* 



!wK 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LUttl 






iM, 









.IM 



*? 



■w 



A ' At* 



:*hw 









LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



■€a_. 




014 665 048 A 



<?m:« 






J^^^^S; 






Ksasx 






'.<>;> 


^*^^>>^- 


. 




«§ 


jar"' '"it: 10*~ 


est 


-- 
<8£ 


rf>5^ «£C< 


^iC 















ICC CT- .... C i 

cxc: < c 






